Fukushima Radiation: Is It Still Safe To Eat Fish?

140005285I’ve received several questions over the past few months about whether my recommendations for fish consumption (one pound of cold-water, fatty fish per week) have changed since the Fukushima disaster. You may have seen reports in the media about the discovery of radioactive isotopes (cesium-134 and cesium-137) in Pacific bluefin tuna that migrated from Japan to California waters. (1) This was covered by more than a thousand newspapers worldwide and several thousand internet, television and radio outlets.

Unfortunately, despite statements by the authors of the original research and other authorities to the contrary, these media reports led to widespread belief that fish on the Pacific coast of the U.S. now contain harmful levels of radioactive chemicals. Several people have told me that they’re no longer eating seafood themselves or serving it to their children because of this information.

While it’s natural and appropriate to be concerned about radiation, in this case the concern is unfounded. A recent peer-reviewed study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences evaluated the health risks of consuming Pacific bluefin tuna after the Fukushima event and found the following: (2)

  • A typical restaurant-sized portion of Pacific bluefin tuna (200 grams, or 7 ounces) contains about 5% of the radiation you would get from eating one uncontaminated banana and absorbing it’s naturally occurring radiation. All foods on the planet contain radiation. Like every other toxin, it’s the dose of radiation (rather than its simple presence) that determines whether it’s toxic to humans.
  • Levels of naturally occurring radioactive isotopes (polonium-210 and potassium-40) in bluefin tuna are greater by orders of magnitude than levels of radioactive isotopes from Fukushima contamination (cesium-134 and cesium-137). In fact, levels of polonium-210 were 600 times higher than cesium. This suggests that the additional radiation (in the form of cesium) from Fukushima is insignificant from a health perspective.
  • Even at very high intakes (3/4 of a pound of contaminated bluefin tuna a day) for an entire year, you’d still receive only 12% of the dose of radiation you’re exposed to during one cross-country flight from LA to New York.
  • Assuming the very high levels of fish consumption above, the excess relative risk of fatal cancer would be only 2 additional cases per 10 million similarly exposed people. And there’s reason to believe that number is no more than chance. Statistically significant elevations in cancer risk are only observed at doses of radiation that are 25,000 times higher than what you’d be exposed to by eating 3/4 of a pound of bluefin tuna per day.
  • Some bottom-feeding fish right off the coast of Japan contain much higher levels of radiation (i.e. >250 times more cesium) than those found in Pacific bluefin tuna. Even if you consumed 1/3 of a pound per day of this highly contaminated fish, you’d still be below the international dose limit for radiation exposure from food.

Finally, according to Dr. Robert Emery at at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston says you’d need to eat 2.5 to 4 tons of tuna in a year to get a dose of cesium-137 that exceeds health limits. (3) That’s 14 to 22 pounds of tuna a day.

To date, I haven’t seen any credible evidence suggesting that there’s even a minuscule risk from eating fish caught in the Pacific ocean. (Please respond in the comments section if you’re aware of any such evidence). If you read an article on the internet or elsewhere claiming that Fukushima radiation in seafood is causing problems, check to see if it includes references to studies published in peer-reviewed journals by independent researchers. If it doesn’t, I’d advise a healthy dose of skepticism.

My recommendations for seafood consumption haven’t changed. If there’s any risk you should be concerned about when it comes to fish, it’s the risk of not eating enough!

Like what you’ve read? Sign up for FREE updates delivered to your inbox.

  • I hate spam too. Your email is safe with me.

Comments Join the Conversation

  1. Luke says

    When the Gulf had the massive BP spill, the US Government insisted how delicious and “safe” the seafood is. Yeah, right. Crude oil and dispersant. Sounds real safe to me!

  2. Luke says

    I wonder if Chris is getting a kickback from the fishing industry to write this – I would also worry about the massive amounts of pollution, oil spills and other toxins in the ocean in addition to radioactivity. Sorry but radiation is not safe to eat I don’t care what the levels are unless you enjoy colon cancer.

  3. Paul Barbara says

    This is not a comment on the Fukushima radiation/fish safety; I don’t know how to contact Chris regarding Glyphosate in wheat.
    Here is a very disturbing article which I would like to pass on to him (if anyone has his email, please pass this comment on to him).He may be aware of it already, but if not I am sure he will be very interested in it:
    ‘The Real Reason Wheat is Toxic (it’s not the gluten):
    http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/real-reason-for-toxic-wheat-its -not-gluten/

  4. Mark says

    Well how about, (I know very little about fish) Shnook Salmon? Whick I beleive to be a land locked salmon, Never went into ocean. Not as healthy as Pacific Salmon, I got that, however 2-3 times a year I will buy and eat a 1 pound piece of salmon. Usally at one sitting, sometimes it takes two. I have avoided salmon like radioactive poison, however what about land locked Salmon? This should be safe right?

  5. sevenmilebridge says

    cesium137 is a radioisotope it bio accumulates you eat fish out of the Pacific you will have health problems and cancer fact!

  6. Paul Barbara says

    Fukushima Radiation Nearing West Coast:
    http://ecowatch.com/2014/10/23/fukushima-radiation-west-coast/?

    Watch the short video; apparently the Japanese only allow 100 beq. of radiation per kilogram in food; above that, it’s not fit for human consumption, but it CAN be exported to the US, which allows 1,200 beq. of radioactive Caesium in food!! Don’t you people understand, the US Government and Regulatory Departments care diddly squat for the people.
    And you want tests? Well, go pay for them! The Government shut down the air monitoring of radiation after Fukushima; what you don’t know, they figure, won’t harm THEM.

  7. Paul Barbara says

    Don’t worry! Be happy! Keep your blinkers on, folks. Nowt to see here, move on.
    On the other hand (as Chaim Bermant used to say), what you don’t want to know CAN hurt you.
    28 Proofs: West Coast absolutely fried with Fukushima Radiation, Part I: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/09/22/28-proofs-west-coast-absolutely-fried-with-fukushima-radiation-part-i/
    I know the website is suspect on some counts (like anti-Semitism) but this article does not touch on that subject.
    Wakey, wakey, folks!!

  8. says

    Dear Mr. Kresser,

    I found your article interesting and your request to ask people to provide peer reviewed journals to cite their claims. I certainly appreciate you not neglecting to provide a link to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science’s ‘recent peer-reviewed study’.

    Seems the bulk of the article was published in April of 2013 however the bulk of the study was seemingly all calculated in August of 2011. That would be fine and well if like 40K and 210Po, the 134 and 137Cs was a constant number to evaluate. As fate would have it they are not and they Pacific has been getting an increasing daily dose from the melted down (probably through containment, cores) now for more than 3 years steady. The amount of contaminated water entering the Pacific has been estimated to be from the low 300,000 metric tonnes to 600,000 metric tonnes, daily.

    While I unfamiliar with your Physics, Biology or Health care background, I cannot fault you for repeating what others have ‘reassured’ you with; that is unless you didn’t bother to verify the facts or your editor decided the facts didn’t need verifying.

    In the abstract they extrapolated dosages to zooplankton of the waters in Japan to arrive at estimates of what the potential effects of a very confined group of isotopes (134Cs, 137Cs, and 110mAg) potentially might be up the food chain, to humans as a focal group.

    I found it a bit incompetent on the part of the researchers not verify radionuclide of silver they were referring to. 110 m1AG or 110m2Ag as the half lives of the isotopes 660(40) nanoseconds and 249.9 days, respectively might hold some relevancy if the study were indeed valid.

    What invalidates the study is it is an extrapolation of dosages of krill and oar feet or in Latin as they used euphausiids and copepods.

    While some arctic species of krill may live for as many as six years most, such as the species native to the Japanese coast Euphausia pacifica, only have about a two year life span. This is convenient for such an extrapolation as they don’t even last the half life of 134Cs, at 2.06 years, let alone the alone the 30.17 year half life of 137Cs. The four to twelve month average life span the collected copepod species is even more convenient.

    Convenient in the since that any subsequent studies done would be of off-spring of those original krill and oar feet studied not any that would be able to accumulate contamination beyond either species nature life span and providing no relevant data for there potential bioaccumulation of the study isotopes.

    The basic crux here is micro organisms such as plankton are restricted by their diminutive size to be incapable of taking in what to humans would be a fatal dose however just one energetic, radioisotope particulate taken in by these organisms is in all probability, fatal. This study never addressed that aspect of that potential nor has it considered repeat studies for population density, distribution, and mortality of either of them. While I can understand such a study was not the focus of this article. I would venture to say in such a degree of variables always present in every nuclear incident, one is negligent if they don’t continually evaluate the selected study species, especially when the ‘incident’ in question is on-going. Wouldn’t you agree?

    As I have already related, the comparison isotopes 40K and 210Po are a relative constant rate of back ground decay that has essentially been a part of our planetary geology since it accreted. 40K being something the biology has adapted to as life emerged and 210Po being extremely rare and found only in traces, due to its relatively short half life of 138.3 days. 210Po is highly toxic; by mass it is around 250,000 times more toxic than hydrogen cyanide. Alpha particles emitted by 210Po can damage organic tissue easily if polonium is ingested, inhaled, or absorbed; alpha emitters like 210Po are not dangerous provided they do not penetrate the epidermis and hence are not hazardous as long as the alpha particles remain outside of the body.

    I will let Argonne Labs educate you to 210Po and perhaps the researchers doing the study need a refresher as they obviously are confused as to which isotope they are referring to in the quote from your article below:
    .
    https://web.archive.org/web/20070703021010/http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/polonium.pdf

    “Levels of naturally occurring radioactive isotopes (polonium-210 and potassium-40) in blue fin tuna are greater by orders of magnitude than levels of radioactive isotopes from Fukushima contamination (cesium-134 and cesium-137). In fact, levels of polonium-210 were 600 times higher than cesium. This suggests that the additional radiation (in the form of cesium) from Fukushima is insignificant from a health perspective.”

    I happen to know for a fact that there has not been any Alpha emitter assessments made on any of the blue fin tuna, not caught in the beginning of this disaster or at anytime during the duration of this three year plus dog and pony show. Nor do I know of any Alpha emitter assessments made previous to Fukushima save for the “Lucky Dragon Incident” that occurred during ‘Castle Bravo’ test blast off the Marshall Islands on March 1st, 1954.

    http://www1.american.edu/TED/LUCKY.HTM

    In fact the DOE has gone out of its way to restrict studies of Alpha emitting isotopes in all agencies that might have some relevancy such as the FDA, EPA, NRC, and etcetera. While 210Po was not the killer in the Lucky Dragoon accident another Alpha emitter was and it was highly classified at the time, still is; 239Pu.

    Understanding that 239Pu has a 24,000 year half life and then some, knowing that it contaminated the crew of that vessel and their entire catch and the surrounding waters, knowing that they continued to do test there and in other locations about the Pacific Ocean; one can rest assured that any Alpha emitter assessment on any Pacific Seafood that showed positive for short lived 210Po, it also going to be positive for 239Pu. I found it in every Pacific Ocean water sample I did, previous to Fukushima. So why do these experts neglect to account for that contamination in the Blue fin as well. Logic confirms that it is in every piece of Pacific seafood to some degree or another. Mr. Kresser you are probably not aware the levels of 239Pu have increased massively since Fukushima, are you?

    “One gram of 210Po could in theory poison 20 million people of whom 10 million would die. The actual toxicity of 210Po is lower than these estimates, because radiation exposure that is spread out over several weeks (the biological half-life of polonium in humans is 30 to 50 days) is somewhat less damaging than an instantaneous dose. It has been estimated that a median lethal dose of 210Po is 15 megabecquerels (0.41 mCi), or 0.089 micrograms, still an extremely small amount.”

    Russian dissident and defector Alexander Litvinenko, was poisoned with 210Po or that silly ‘harmless Polonium’ that seems to have some how massively contaminated the globe, even though in reality it’s very rare in nature and as easy to find uranium has been mined out of existence (The source of Polonium is Uranium ores), then naturally occurring Polonium would or should be even rarer. The 138 day half life decay rate is a constantly diminishing return and with its source diminishing as well, it detection is going to be a steep descending bell curve back into the natural background radiation.

    Just reason it out for yourself sir, you see I was getting angry at folks writing their nuclear is safe and there is nothing to worry about articles but I began to see; it’s not your fault, you are being deeply deceived. As bad as you now understand 210Po is, 239Pu is even more toxic and with a 24,000 year half life has an exponentially higher potential to be ingested over and over again by a variety of organic forms, given its long half life span.

    Which brings us to; why do the media, agencies, ‘experts’ and you sir, only mention three isotopes from Fukushima, as at last indentifying count, over 900 had been detected and indentified. Granted some like certain radioiodines are relatively short lived but there are some that were released that will take longer to decay than 239Pu.

    Mr. Kresser, I hold no ill towards you but I feel I need to say this; if you have and love your children, you need to dig deeper into this incident. You also should stop eating fish; I mean really, sea stars are melting on the west coast as we speak. Do you really want to eat something from water that is dissolving calcium based sea life?

      • Roger Metcalfe says

        A superb and highly credible explanation Nuda. Bravo monsieur! I am a writer for various health magazines and have written and researched this topic responsibly and thoroughly, and you are spot on. The Fukushima nuclear melt down is a disaster of global proportions and the cover-up extensive. “Where does the truth lie?” is my question. We have to know the truth about radioactivity, for the lie can kill us.

  9. NoMObama says

    There is a huge difference between levels of radiation passing through and around your body during a flight and ingesting radiation, which stays in your body indefinitely. This comparison while factually true is a fraud. Boston Medical Center and the University of California San Francisco performed a study, which linked over 200 diseases directly to radiation and chemical exposure. Ingested radiation has no mechanism for leaving the body and remains there to continually effect bodily systems, whereas cosmic radiation does not have any continual effect once you leave the exposure area. Many top scientists are blowing the whistle on the nuclear waste pollution and it’s impact on our health. Dilution of radiation is another massive fraud. They know this radiation makes its way back to us and is the cause of much death and disease. This is not a new problem since Fukushima. We have been dumping nuclear waste irresponsibly for 75 years as government agencies have been looking the other way nuclear waste is “diluted” back into the ecosystem. Part of the problem is the USA does not have a safe storage facility anywhere for handling nuclear waste. We’ve been dumping and literally pouring this waste directly back into the Earth where is enters water and food cycles. The suggestion that by the time it returns to us it is “diluted” is therefore “safe” is insane and they know it. We have a ruling class that could not care less for the future of Earth.

    • says

      I agree, nearly all or most of the diseases of today is related to dumping of this contaminating waste into our oceans or land, thus bio-amplifys toxins and eventualy moves up the food chain where human consumption becomes inevetable.
      Their is a Documentary you may be interested in, search “The Truth about Nuclear Waste Disposal” you can see it on Youtube or other daily motion videos. I could not post it on my site due to size of film.

    • says

      Exactly, can i also add that Cesium or C137 alongside strontium-90, and plutonium-239 will be the most persistant of all environmental hazards brought on by man (himself) and there will be no relief from their effects in your life time or theirafter. One Radionuclide particle is enought to divide a cell into two, distrupt DNA Synthesis, mutate and bring on cancer, thus early Exit. This action will also be hereditated and passed onto the next generation creating more and more complicated diseases and illnesses, out of control sign leading to end of another civilization, the process has been Bio-accumilating and unfortunatley just like Adam and his forbidden fruitree their is no return from unjust error, Unlike Adam Been the first Human on earth to be unjust for his action, The sacrifice of sin sas presented in form of disease so Man could learn from his mistakes.

  10. Jack says

    Hiroshima and Nagasaki were back in business in no time, Fukushima is across the Pacific so the math suggests little or no effect on the west coast of NA. Beside, eventually everyone dies no one escaped this faith yet, eat drink and be merry. Kryptonite is what makes me sick.

  11. says

    There is absolutely no question that the increasing levels of radiation even in areas that are low are still causing DNA changes with mutations and deformities to insects, birds, animals, fish and soon enough to HUMAN BEINGS! The radiation and its damage is just working its way up the food chain that we are on top of! This gives us humans one and only one advantage over the creatures that have already been contaminated with this radiation! Our advantage is that for those that are smart enough and have the desire to detox the radiation from our bodies, we can do it! The best way to detox the radiation and heavy metals from our bodies is with the natural mineral called Zeolite that has been proven to safely remove both radiation and heavy metals from the human body and from animals as well. For more information on this important detox, do a search for the single word Zeolite.

  12. says

    It is now Aug 2014 and its a proven fact that both radiation and mercury levels have tripled in the last only three years! WE ARE BEING POISONED and you better accept and figure this out for yourselves! If you want to be and stay healthy doing a radiation and heavy metal detox with the natural mineral called zeolite would be a VERY good idea! It would also be smart to store a quantity of Zeolite for the future because this is not going to stop in your lifetime! EVER! For a very good resource of zeolite information go to the zeolite website under its DOT COM .

  13. says

    Its now Aug 2014 and its a proven fact that both radiation and mercury levels have tripled in the last only three years! WE ARE BEING POISONED and you better accept and figure this out for yourselves! If you want to be and stay healthy doing a radiation and heavy metal detox with the natural mineral called zeolite would be a VERY good idea! It would also be smart to store a quantity of Zeolite for the future because this is not going to stop in your lifetime! EVER! For a very good resource of zeolite information go to the zeolite website under its DOT COM .

  14. says

    URGENT! OK Folks not only is the Pacific Ocean being radiated by TEPCO by dumping millions of gallons of radioactive waste into it every single day for the past three years, now a news report came out about a study that says that the mercury level has tripled in worlds oceans in just the past few years! Now the fish and seafood are proven to be even more polluted! Anyone that has been eating fish and seafood especially from the Pacific Ocean should really be thinking about removing the radiation, mercury and other toxic heavy metals from their body with the natural mineral called Zeolite that has been proven to do the best job of safely removing these toxic contaminates! For more information on this detox do a search for the single word Zeolite.

  15. says

    The Fukushima reactor, power plant and surrounding areas will never be safe! The so-called ice wall is a joke that will also never work to keep the radioactive poison from dumping into the groundwater and crops in Japan and into the Pacific Ocean! The Ice wall is a stall tactic to buy a year or two for TEPCO for their hope to keep the pressure off of them to delay those responsible from going to prison for gross negligence and crimes against humanity, which is where they should be already! Due to the continued dumping of millions and millions of gallons of radioactive waste into the Pacific Ocean each and every day anyone eating Pacific Fish or seafood that has a very good chance of being contaminated with radiation should be thinking very hard about doing a radiation and heavy metal detox with the natural mineral called Zeolite that has been proven to safely remove both radiation and heavy metals from the human body! For more information on removing radiation do an online search for the single word Zeolite.

    • Gabriel Raiano says

      Zeolite doesn’t remove radiation from the blood stream, only from the digestive system while it’s passing through it. It also has to be properly sourced & consumed in an adequate quantity with food every time you eat for it to work effectively.

      The radiation level would only be dangerous if you were consuming fish from within a very close proximity to Fukushima itself as the radiation from the plant not only becomes more & more diluted to the point that it’s practically non existent the further away it gets but passes out of the fish themselves within 2-4 months.

      It’s been shown that the levels in fish from the rest of the world are so minute that they quite often don’t even register until the samples are concentrated & that in almost all cases the caesium damage is a minute fraction in comparison to other naturally occurring radiations in food and has a similar biological half life.

      I thought it was a serious problem myself until I did a few hours of research.

      • says

        Your information is not correct Gabe! Proper micronized zeolite will remove both heavy metals and radiation from the body and through the blood. In fact proper micronized zeolite can pass the blood brain barrier as well. Zeolite is also the best and most safe way to remove both radiation and heavy metals from the body! You need to do better and more research Gabe! In fact I urge anyone interested in doing this detox to do their own research by searching for the simple single word Zeolite.

        • Gabriel Raiano says

          Cool! I never heard of “micronized” zeolite before. It’s proving challenging to find any with an average particle size of less than 0.3 microns though which is what’s required to enter the bloodstream.

          This doesn’t discredit anything else I said though.

      • says

        Also Gabe! Fish will have different levels of radiation in them depending on ocean currents and where they have been migrating to and from! Any fish hanging out anywhere near the coast of Japan will be well radiated before making its way to the west coast of the USA and Canada to end up on your dinner plate or in your sushi roll! Also because of the food chain, larger fish eating smaller fish such as tuna will have higher amounts of radiation and heavy metals! Its really a crap shoot to who will get the golden ticket fish with the most radiation in them! Are you ready to roll the dice? Because TEPCO the Japanese power company continues to pump millions of gallons of radiation a day into the Pacific Ocean your chance of becoming dangerously radiated increases every day and the cases of new cancers will increase as well if the media is allowed to publish this information in time to better educate the Pacific Ocean fish and seafood consumers out there! YES people should and need to be made aware how the natural mineral called Zeolite can safely remove both radiation and heavy metals from their bodies!

  16. Gabriel Raiano says

    I’m not sure where you got your statistics from as there are fish being caught in Fukushima that contain 200,000 times more radiation than banana does.

    Banana contains 80-150 Bq/kg whereas spotbelly rockfish in Fukushima currently contains about 193,000 Bq/kg!

    This would mean eating 200g of Fukushima rockfish would be equivalent to eating 336 bananas in terms of intrinsic radiation quantity but taking biological half-life into account for the sake of actual radiation damage to the body the amount of bananas would actually be about 2-4 times as much!

  17. Gabriel Raiano says

    I’m not sure where you got your statistics from as there are fish being caught in Fukushima that contain 200,000 times more radiation than banana does.

    Banana contains 80-150 Bq/kg whereas spotbelly rockfish in Fukushima currently contains about 193,000 Bq/kg!

  18. Gabriel Raiano says

    Another thought… I mentioned yesterday that perhaps the body doesn’t handle these new isotopes the same way as it does naturally occurring ones. I’ve read that caesium is absorbed by the body like potassium which means it’s going to hang around for quite some time. Then there’s the half life to take into account.

    According to this article “Polonium is excreted fairly quickly, its effective half-life in the body is about 30 days (mostly due to excretion, but also due to radioactive decay).” Whereas caesium 134 has a biological half-life of 110 days which means it does a lot more damage than polonium. 137 has a longer halflife also at 70 days.

    Bluefin tuna may only have 5% of a banana but that 5% obviously goes a lot further at damaging the body than the polonium in a banana & what about the fish that’s being caught & seaweed that’s being found with hundreds of times the safe limit of radiation (bearing in mind it’s only being tested for caesium in most cases) ? I read Canada stopped testing their imports after Fukushima.

  19. Paul Barbara says

    ‘..This time, upon discussing the acceptable level of radiation exposure for playgrounds in primary schools in Fukushima, they have calculated, guided and determined a level of “3.8μSv per hour” on the basis of “20mSv per year”. It is completely wrong to use such a standard for schools that are going to run a normal school curriculum, in which case a standard similar to usual radiation protection measurement (1mSv per year, or even in exceptional cases, 5mSv) ought to be applied, and not the one used in cases of exceptional or urgent circumstances (for two to three days, or at the most, one to two weeks). It is not impossible to use a standard, perhaps for a few months, of 10mSv per year at the maximum, if the public is rightly notified of the necessity of taking caution, and also if special measures are to be taken. But normally it is better to avoid such a thing. We have to note that it is very rare even among the occupationally exposed persons (84,000 in total) to be exposed to radiation of 20mSv per year. I cannot possibly accept such a level to be applied to babies, infants and primary school students, not only from my scholarly viewpoint but also from my humanistic beliefs.

    Just how much should one accept Corporations, governments and their ‘Scientific Advisors’ to be forthright in their advice to the public regarding such things as food, drug, radiation, GMO’s and other health threats?
    Though this is old, I don’t believe it has come up on this Forum: ’20 Millisieverts for Children and Kosako Toshiso’s Resignation': http://www.japanfocus.org/events/view/83

    Here is a small part of the article, which explains why a Japanese Government advisor resigned because he saw major flaws in many areas, gave advice to rectify it, but was ignored:
    ‘..You rarely come across a level of 10mSv per year on the covering soil if you measure the leftover soil at a disposal site in any uranium mine (it would be about a few mSv per year at the most), so one needs to have utmost caution when using such a level. Therefore, I strongly protest the decision to use the standard of 20mSv per year for school playgrounds, and ask for revision…’.

    Resigning from such a prestigious and I should imagine highly-paid job is not a light step to take, as is witnessed by the ‘yes men’ scientists working for corporations and governments ‘toeing the line’, and going along with what suits their paymasters’ interests.

  20. says

    I enjoyed your article a lot but isn’t it possible that the body handles these new fission nuclides from power plants completely differently to naturally occurring ones that have been around for millions of years?

    I read today that Cesium 137 is not slow acting and causes immediate damage to the heart muscles & also that lamb in the UK has not been considered safe for children since Chernobyl 28 years ago because of the caesium.

    I’d greatly appreciate any input if you’ve heard otherwise.

    http://enenews.com/3-workers-suffer-cardiac-arrest-at-japan-waste-incineration-plant-49-microsvhr-found-in-scrap-last-month-doctor-associates-with-cesium-137-exposure

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/dec/29/sheep-farmers-chernobyl-meat-restricted

  21. says

    TEPCO the negligent Japanese power company that allowed this disaster to happen by not relocating the reactor coolant generators to safe high ground after they were told to make them safe years before the disaster hit is still being negligent while lying to the people about just about anything you can think of while they continue to dump millions of gallons of radioactive poison waste into the Pacific Ocean for the fish and sea life to ingest each and every day! The radiation is building up into toxic amounts very quickly! Anyone eating Pacific fish or seafood should consider doing a radiation and heavy metal detox with the natural mineral called zeolite that has been proven to safe;y remove both radiation and heavy metals from the body! For more information on this important detox do an online search for the single word Zeolite.

  22. Piet says

    The example of the banana is so bad! A banana does not have ionizing radiation! Ionizing radiation is very dangerous, but the natural radiation of a banana is not ionizing so it’s totally safe. So you can’t compare a radiation contaminated tuna with a banana, that’s fools science!

  23. Paul Barbara says

    Fukushima’s Children are Dying:
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/fukushimas-children-are-dying/5387242
    Plenty on the web about this; not a peep out of the MSM. Why? Is this not newsworthy? Is it ‘False Information’, to be easily debunked and laid to rest? Or does the MSM prove the old adage, ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune’, and the ‘tune’ is not one the Corporations (and their lickspittles, the ‘Government’, want to hear)?

  24. ExperienceIsEvidence says

    My body is highly aware when it comes to chemicals, and it knew before my intellect that significant chemical change had happened, long before radiation reports came out.

    A year to a year-and-a-half after my body noticed a change in the same Pacific salmon I had been eating successfully, articles about the radiation came out. I then realized that was what my body was noticing and responding to.

    Toxic chemicals can accumulate in the body. This tends to happen progressively as we age, and is complicated by the ever-increasing exposure to toxins in daily living.

    Even if one’s body doesn’t feel chemical impact via brain fog, sinus/ear blockage, chemical sensitivity, digestive symptoms, etc., it doesn’t mean damage isn’t being done.

  25. Brett says

    Whenever the word Radiation is used people are naturally worried and with good reason but the simple fact at the end of the day is who do you trust.

    It is easy to make a smear campaign and terrorize people on possibilities just like scarying a child with thoughts of a monster – it’s easy to fear the unknown but like a conspiracy theory it’s harder to cover everyone up when they have no bias reporting independent studies into known risks – so yes I do believe Government reports because Governments are made up of people in the end who for the most part make decisions for their families and you could never cover up such a conspiracy on such scale if there was irrefutable evidence. It’s like the Moon Hoaxers – there is simply too many people involved.

    I live 400 kilometres from Maralinga where back in the 1960’s the UK dropped several very large nuclear weapons and some of them very unsafe by todays standards; and radioactive isotopes blew over a large area of Australia and everyone at the time was like “we’re all gonna die” and stuff but few – IF ANY – did.. apparently this was meant to wipe out generations and be round for thousands of years but the fall out appeared limited in close proximity to the event itself. My parents lived like everyone else well into their 80’s and doesn’t appear to be any real drama there.. and they’ve eaten off this land organic produce..

    It’s easy to be fearful of the unknown – but harder to argue against facts. If thousands of people were dying why aren’t there any whistle-blowers – it’s been 3 years since the crisis and for some reason it’s only the conspirators.

    Think it over.

    • Paul Barbara says

      Who to trust? And you plump for the government?
      Check out ‘Gulf of Tonkin Lie’ (used to embroil US in Vietnam); WMD Lies, used to attack Iraq; cover-up of known attack plans, and date, of Japanese attack plans for Pearl Harbor, and withholding the information from Pearl Commanders (to bring US into WWII, as only 16% of US public wanted to enter WWII pre-Pearl Harbor); deliberate loading of Lusitania with explosives and ammunition, then putting it deliberately in harms way, DESPITE express warning by Germany that it was a target, to soften up US to enter WWI.
      And I suppose you believe that an aluminium Boeing can slice through thick steel beams as though they were butter (see ‘9/11: The Great American Psy-Opera’); a Boeing can disappear into an 18′ round hole in the Pentagon (see ‘Behind the Smoke Curtain: The 9/11 Pentagon Attack’); that the US has a genuine ‘War on Drugs’ (see Peter Dale Scott ‘Cocaine Politics': Mike Ruppert ‘Crossing the Rubicon’); Terry Reed ‘Compromised’); that the 9/11 Commission Report was a genuine attempt to get to the truth (see ‘9/11 Commission Refuses to Hear Testimony of 503 First-Responder Eyewitnesses’).
      Contrary to popular belief, there were MANY 9/11 whistleblowers, but they were gagged, ‘suicided’ or had accidents, or just ignored.
      Your faith in governments is quaint, but unfortunately misguided.
      And remember the ‘Manhattan Project’ – about 125,000 workers, and no leaks!
      The US government ordered radiation monitors switched off shortly after the Fukushima ‘incident’, and raised the ‘safe’ level of radiation people could be exposed to, ‘Just Like That’, as Tommy Cooper, a deceased British comedian, used to say.
      And citizens are having to set up their own monitoring groups, as government chooses not to.
      Please check my links out; you sound genuine, albeit rather naive.

  26. says

    Shrimp are often caught at night with lanterns put out to attract them to the light before they get scooped up into a net! However In Fukushima you can see the radiated shrimp glow under water just before they try to jump into the boat to cool down.

  27. says

    Shrimp are often caught at night with lanterns put out to attract them to the light before they get scooped up into a net! In Fukushima you can see the radiated shrimp glow under water just before they try to jump into the boat to cool down.

  28. says

    As TEPCO the corrupt and negligent Japanese power company continues to dump millions of gallons of toxic radioactive waste into the Pacific Ocean the buildup of radiation in fish, sea life and marine animals continue! More and more people are now eating contaminated fish and seafood and the results will be cancers and future DNA mutations that will cause birth defects! Anyone concerned about their health that has been eating Pacific Ocean fish and seafood should consider doing a radiation detox with the natural mineral called Zeolite that has been proven to detox and remove both radiation and heavy metals from the body!

  29. Paul Barbara says

    I am posting this to show just how unreliable CDC, EPA etc. are in investigating serious dangers to health and safety:
    400 % Spike in Rare Birth Defects Near Leaking Hanford Nuclear Site: http://nsnbc.me/2014/04/24/400-spike-in-rare-birth-defects-near-leaking-hanford-nuclear-site/
    ‘CDC Epidemiologist claims Incidents are not Focused near Hanford – A Map tells Otherwise. The local Yakima Herald Republic (YHR) cites epidemiologist Mandy Stahre, who is assigned to the Washington state by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as saying that the incidents did not show up seasonably, which they probably would if the cases were tied to pesticide exposure.
    The CDC epidemiologist directly contradicts readily available evidence, claiming that the incidents are not focused near the Hanford site.
    Yakima, Benton, and Franklin are geographically straddling the leaking Hanford nuclear facility. NBCNews cites CDC epidemiologist Mandy Stahre as sort of hoping the incidents would have gone away, saying:
    “We’re really concerned about the fact that the anencephaly rates are still so high. We were sort of hoping that this may have been a statistical anomaly or would go away.”
    Genetic councilor Susie Ball is cited by YHR as saying that for birth defects like anencephaly to happen, there needs to be an overlap of both genetic and environmental factors.

    While CDC expert Mandy Stahre apparently is “puzzled” by the over 400 percent spike in the tragic birth defect, the most puzzling mystery appears to be how a CDC epidemiologist can claim that the incidents are not focused near the Hanford site. That is, presuming that a CDC official is capable of looking at a map and to locate Yakima, Benton, Franklin, and the Hanford nuclear site which is centered in between them…’

  30. Paul Barbara says

    It seems the benefit of fish oil has now come into question:
    Is the Fish Oil Craze Just a Bunch of Hooey After All?
    http://www.care2.com/causes/is-the-fish-oil-craze-just-a-bunch-of-hooey-after-all.html
    ‘..Flawed Research: It’s “Very Soft” and “Only Speculation”

    “I reviewed this original paper and it turned out to be that they actually never measured the frequency of heart disease in [Inuit],” Dr. George Fodor, the study’s lead scientist, told the CBC News.

    “They relied upon some [public health records] in Greenland, and also relied on hearsay. People told them that [heart disease] was very rare,” he added. “So this is very soft, from the point of view of science…”

    • Roman says

      Paul, Brian Peskin has been sharing data about harm from supplementing with fish oil for a long time,

  31. Berenice says

    Chris, I am sure you will enjoy a sushi made with fish full of tumors. An hecatomb is taking place and the truth is hidden while pictures of the marine wildlife are self explanatory.

    The so called “scientists” are protecting economic interests of large corporations. Is it worth having ziliions of dollars in an irradiated world ?

  32. M says

    Chris, I cannot believe you are using the “peer reviewed” thing. Have you been keeping tabs on the alternative news reports about what has been going on and coming our way for the last 3 years? have you noticed the zillions of species that have been affected and that “no one” (who would be respected in peer review circles) can figure out why? Do you not get that information in controlled? You were recommended to me by our integrative MD. But I tell you in our metro area that the alternative health practitioners we have known and gone to for years- NONE of them were eating fish BEFORE what happened 3 years ago! Much less, now.

  33. Einsteins' conscience says

    Hey man, like so what if a nuclear reactor blew up, or if a bunch of reactors blew up, there is no evidence of any serious threats from nuclear contamination, I don’t see no Godzilla’s comin out da ocean…If there ain’t no problems from Fukishima, then let’s build more nuclear reactors and make electricity too cheap to meter, like the Government told us back in the 50’s.

    Hey kids, if you want to know if nuclear reactors are bad and dangerous try to build one next to the rich people…the only diseases you will see are from the NIMBY virus….the Not In MY Back-Yard syndrome.

    In twenty years most people in Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California will be sick and dying with cancers from Fukishima.

    In twenty years all child bearing women will have their reproductive organs contaminated with radiation from Fukishima and their babies will be born dead.

    here’s a video from Dr. Helen Caldicott:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ITrXVJMKeQ

    Living among the stupid makes death more appealing.
    When self destruction is a virtue and not a mental illness the human race cannot last long.

    As for me, I am eating everything I am not allergic to, we are all going to die from something. Some of us are going to die from stupidity and the rest of us are going to die from living.

    Make electricity too cheap to meter…build your own nuclear reactor at home now, here’s how:

    http://www.myownfukishima.com

  34. Cleo says

    The article “The Ocean is Broken,” link below, is a sailor’s story about what Fukushima did to the Pacific Ocean. I would not eat fish from the Pacific. And since I cannot know where the fish, I buy, came from, and do not know if the labeling is correct, and because farmed fish is not good for you either, I decided to give up eating fish altogether.

    http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1848433/the-ocean-is-broken/

  35. me says

    I call bull puckey on “fish being safe to eat” – Especially when what was considered a dangerous level of radiation was raised to a higher level, AFTER fukashima, therefor, making everyone magically not sick or at risk. Also, if it is just isolated to the ocean, why is radiation appearing across the continent in Ottawa Ontario Canada??? – To believe the government I would have to believe water molecules have become magically sentient and realized they should not be evaporated from the ocean, but politely remain there until they are no longer lethal… For all those in doubt, try some math: Plutonium, for example, has a half life of 88 years, it will take 792 years until 1 pound of it become 1/256th of a pound. Not to mention strontium, cesium, uranium, and all the other “completely safe” isotopes. Nuclear power is a really effing stupid way to boil water. It’s a cover up for the production of weapons grade isotopes. Don’t believe me? Read some actual history BOOKS, and you will see it there.

  36. Deb V says

    I don’t think your right…. just in my town there have been life threating illnesses due to fish from the pacific. everyone should be getting a lot of potassium while they can. this problem is only going to get worse.

  37. Paul Barbara says

    ‘Canadian 10th Grader Discovers Radioactive Imported Seafood Long After Government Stopped Testing':
    http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/01/canadian-10th-grader-radioactive-imported-seafood/

    So US and Canada stopped testing; well, at least they can truthfully say ‘We haven’t found any heightened radiation in seafood’, bit like they said they didn’t find any evidence of controlled demolition in the WTC – of course they didn’t, as they didn’t look for it!

  38. Spud says

    Hold on. I absolutely love Sushi and I have been following this very closely, and although there are plenty of ‘opinions’ about the safety of Pacific seafood, I find listening to the true experts the most rewarding. Here is a link to a respected nuclear scientist’s view on this matter. It’s only 6:30 in length, but if you are a bit impatient to wait for the part about eating the fish, then skip down to 5:00 and play to the end. This guy really knows his stuff and his site has an incredible amount of info about Fukushima and the ongoing bigger danger not yet contained. It is alot worse than any of us realize. For me, I am buying a reliable pocket radiation detector and using it.

    http://fairewinds.org/media/fairewinds-videos/west-coast-radiation-exposure-risks

  39. Robert Kavanaugh says

    I’m concerned about larger, long-lived fish that are already renowned for heavy metal toxicity. So, I intend to avoid swordfish and bluefin tuna, if not now, than increasingly in the future. It’s important to understand how ionizing radiation effects one’s health. First, it isn’t the radiation itself that directly kills cells, it’s the free-radicals or reactive oxygen species produced by the ionizing radiation that reacts with cellular proteins. Radiation’s “accumulated” effect if really the accumulated effect of highly reactive molecules modifying DNA, and increasing rates of mutation including cancer. Finally, the dangers of ingesting radioactive actinides (radioactive cesium, strontium, polonium) is by far more dangerous than being exposed to ionizing radiation from an external source. Radioactive potassium from bananas and other food sources tends to remain even in the body. Whatever is consumed is equally eliminated. This does not hold true for other actinides, especially those that mimic calcium absorption. I’ve studied the effects of radioactivity on human nutrition for years, and I suggest that increasing antioxidant enzyme levels by increasing one’s intake of polyphenols and phytoestrogens may prove moderately effective, but would never counter the effects of directly ingesting radioactive actinides. If ingested, they must be eliminated through chelation therapies directly targeting the radioactive material. IMHO.

  40. Bob says

    Bogus studies, and cover ups to protect an industry’s profits are a way of life in America. When there is a multi-billion industry involved there will be many people out there who will do what ever it takes to protect that industry. When I start to read stories about how our government is refusing to acknowledge the problems many of the sailors aboard the USS Ronald Reagan it reminds me that often it takes years/decades before the real truth comes out.

    Detailed studies, peer review, government involvement with paid lobbyists, complicated scientific jargon, and in the end millions of lives were lost and the truth finally came out about the safety of smoking cigarettes. Just remember don’t count on the word of others to keep you safe, and remember you are not living in a perfect world.

  41. Mrs Bianchi says

    I am a Cert. Nuclear Medicine Technologist. We operate under allowable amounts of radiation and what is safe for a human. Each organ (even the eyeball) has a limit. Different age groups right down to an unborn fetus has a limit and all of the limits vary. Radioactive sources/isotopes all have different half life, absorption and eliminations, from the body. Reading articles with info of “5% contamination” means nothing to me. I want to know what the Geiger counter readings are for the seafood, how many MCi… they are reading, then compare them to what is the ALARA prior to 2011. Radiation levels were increased after the contamination in order to keep selling contaminated seafood to people.

    • jared says

      Japan actually made their standard for allowable contamination 10x more strict than any other nation they sell to, and that includes fish they export, not just fish they sell to their own people. I have yet to see one credible source that shows any government has raised it’s allowable limits. Canada set the limit for cesium at 1000 becquerels per kg, japan’s limit is 100. Since the fukushima meltdown, canada concluded that only 1/169 fish sold to them from japan contained any detectable amount of cesium and 0 breached the 1000 becquerel limit. The article read implied that the reason for this is that most fish japan exports is caught further from the coast. The fish they are catching closer to where the accident happened is obviously more contaminated, but of the 33,000 fish the japanese have tested in coastal waters, only 60% have had any contamination, and only 1/5 of those 60% are above the extremely strict 100bq/kg standard they have set.

      • Paul Barbara says

        If you check out the comments on this thread, most of them are concerned with fish CAUGHT in the Pacific, not ‘exported’ from Japan.
        You will also find thhat Tepppco and the Japanese Govt. have tried to hide the true extent of the Fukushima contamination.
        Somehow, I don’t really think too many folks would be interested in eating or drinking anything exported from Japan; I could be wrong, of course.

  42. Elizabeth says

    I am a little concerned that much of the information on this cite is negative. Yes everything that is in our air, our water, and the earth itself could or will eventually cause cancer. But it has also been proven that a positive attitude and a sense of gratefulness and care prevents or assists in helping with cancer. Also there are multiple plants out there that can help to mitigate the effects of radiation. Despite the fact that many of the comments say how the government is out to cover up or purposely deceive others, one must look carefully at the information that is published by the government. They actually have a very helpful study published on multiple plants that were tested for their ability to help with radiation induced symptoms. Also the FDA came out with the food plate which encourages half of a persons diet should consist of fruits and veggies and that we should be sitting down to meals with family as much as possible. If we would just do the things that are true and not focus so much on the next new “conspiracy” that is out there to harm us we would all be much better off. Love God and love your neighbor was all the Jesus Christ said. I believe he also said that God puts in office whom he wills and that we are to respect the authority of those who are in office. This warped mindset that everything out there is either good or evil is completely invalid. The author of this blog was attempting to state that it is better to dine upon a cold water fatty fish for its myriad of health benefits which are not yet outweighed by its harm rather than the other crap that many of us consume on a daily basis without thought. Have some faith and love and charity. Honestly there are countries full of people who need us to have hope. If we have none, than what a sad world full of unused potential.

    • Paul Barbara says

      What Jesus said was ‘Give unto Caesar that which is Caesars, and to God that which is God’s’.
      He also said ‘The Truth shall set you free’.
      That is what we are trying to ascertain on this site, the Truth as to the safety or otherwise of Pacific seafood.
      Personally, I wouldn’t trust the Government as far as I could throw them; remember, they say GMO’s are safe, and allow all sorts of pesticide, herbicide and bovine growth hormone use which I don’t think you would wish to eat, or feed to your family.

    • Paul Barbara says

      Elizabeth, here is a 13 minute video which shows how big Corporations (and Governments) rig ‘scirentific reports':
      ‘Genetic Fallacy: How Monsanto Silences Scientific Dissent': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShJTcIlTna0
      You see, it’s not just ‘Conspiracy Theory’.
      Like Monsanto, the Nuclear Industry is a very rich and powerful one, with plenty of lobbying clout with the Government, so we can expect the same ‘silencing’ mechanism is at work with Fukushima.
      There is a civilian testing program starting this year in California re radiation and Pacific fish, but I can’t find the website I read about it on. When that gets going, it may prove the issue one way or another.

  43. Paul Barbara says

    @Altair – getting a bit too bothersome to have to scroll through so many comments to find where to respond, so I’ll respond here. Glad to have you agree they shaved the coating to make tritium; obviously you did not know that till I claimed they did, in order to fool the Yanks.
    I have already admitted I was wrong re Windscale being a civil nuclear plant; you could have at least have given me some acknowledgment; but no, still on the attack.
    Basically a bad move, because you have not responded to why insurance companies have stopped covering for cell-phone claims. I have even a Lloyds link to counter your pro-Government/Corporation approach. If you wish. I shall furnish it.
    PS – my ideas about ‘electricity too cheap to meter’, and another one which I did not mention, something that was going around at the time I was in school, nuclear power would provide energy so beneficient that the equivalent of a spoonfull of sugar would provide enough power to take the Queen Mary (a major sea liner of those days) across the Atlantic (from Britain) to New York) were from my childhood memories, not something I had picked up from the internet.
    I would really, really love for you to attack some of Barrie Trower’s statements, but it seems that is below your ‘dignity’.

  44. Peter Johnson says

    it is nice to hear about Tuna, my concern is Salmon and how this effecting them.
    with the amount of salmon that we here should we worried about what is in the fish

  45. Julie says

    The natural potassium 40 that’s in bananas cannot be compared to a piece of fish with an isotope in it. One isotope, and you have cancer. They are incomparable. Look up Biers VII report to start.
    A recommended book to understand this situation is this:
    Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment

    Written by Alexey V. Yablokov (Center for Russian Environmental Policy, Moscow, Russia), Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko (Institute of Radiation Safety, Minsk, Belarus). Consulting Editor Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger (Environmental Institute, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan).
    Volume 1181, December 2009
    335 Pages

    Fukushima is estimated to be three times worse than Chernobyl.
    I think this is important to get. I know that the benefits of fish are wonderful and healthful, but our planet is changing, and I don’t think that the benefits outweigh the risks anymore of fish.

  46. Matt says

    I hate to keep the comments going on such a dated article, but I believe that this topic is still very relevant and will only become more so as time moves on.

    First off, I’d like to thank Chris for his article. I’ve stumbled across many articles doing searches for natural and healthier ways of doing/looking at things, and Chris’s articles are always some of the best. However, I’d have to agree that this particular piece is questionable.

    Having a scientific background, I understand the importance of peer-reviewed articles and studies. Unfortunately, this particular topic has had little time to collect useful studies. The nature of a nuclear meltdown prevents the utilization of peer reviews, since real peer-reviews are typically developed over years. A disaster of this magnitude requires immediate action, and this presents a whole host of issues.

    Without becoming too involved with the reasons why the public has been misinformed, let’s just set aside government bureaucracy this time. That’s usually the main culprit, but in this case we have many other reasons. It started with TEPCO. They have been fibbing about every step of the attempted cleanup since the beginning and have admitted to not having the best people for the job. Containment was set for just a few short months ago, but it has been extended to 2015 now. (I also understand the importance of references, but I’m not writing a report. Those who would like proof can simply do a web search.) In my opinion, 2015 will come and go and this facility, if it hasn’t gone into total meltdown by then, will still be leaking radiation at unheard of levels. Top scientists have even recommended that people simply leave the northern hemisphere if at all possible, should the reactor totally melt down. (Search for seminars in October or November. I can’t remember which event.)

    The economy is already in shambles now. The announcement of radioactive seafood would devastate an entire industry. This would not only have profound economic effects in the U.S., but worldwide. Many nations not only have a steady diet of seafood, but depend on seafood exportation for GDP robustness.

    Radiation levels at the coast of California, particularly in San Francisco, were found to have up to 400% higher than normal levels of radioactivity. Walking the beach, one can take a Geiger counter and detect these varying levels. It’s been done by several individuals, one having been an expert at developing and calibrating the instruments. It’s not just California (where it was highest), but all along the Western U.S. coastline – even Alaska. Government officials are claiming ignorance while non-officials scream for more testing.

    Officially revealing radiation presence at these locations or in seafood could lead to a possible panic, and it would force a public conversation about the severity of the Fukushima disaster. It’s much easier economically, politically, and socioeconomically to just say, “Nothing to worry about here.” While our go-to news outlets seem to usually do a pretty good job of covering the things that we are allowed to know, one usually has to dig a little deeper to find the whole truth. While there are many so-called ‘conspiracy’ and ‘fear-mongering’ outlets in which to receive information that can sometimes be incorrect, I think it’s best to not always just blow these ‘alternative’ outlets off. Opening the mind has never been harmful, and always be armed with the knowledge that truth is often stranger than fiction – it’s not just a saying. We have been raised and taught to only trust certain receptacles of information and only under certain circumstances. This can sometimes circumvent common sense, so be wary.

    With these facts at hand, I’ve decided that it’s okay, just this one time, to not wait on peer-reviewed articles and studies to determine that eating fish at this point in time is not wise. I have little trust in any government or official mouthpiece, peer-reviewed or any other-named guru, that says otherwise.

  47. Paul Barbara says

    ‘Last month, the ruling Japanese coalition parties quickly rammed through Parliament a state secrets law. We Americans better take notice.

    Under its provisions the government alone decides what are state secrets and any civil servants who divulge any “secrets” can be jailed for up to 10 years. Journalists caught in the web of this vaguely defined law can be jailed for up to five years.

    Government officials have been upset at the constant disclosures of their laxity by regulatory officials before and after the Fukushima nuclear power disaster in 2011, operated by Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO)…’
    http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Fukushima-Secrecy-Synd-by-Ralph-Nader-Earthquake_Fukushima-Cover-up_Legislation_Water-140125-294.html

    Suggest your read the whole (short) article).

  48. Paul Barbara says

    Further to my post about the Elk River, W. Virginia toxic spill, the firm (Freedom Industries – linked in some way to Eastman Kodak, I believe) has filed for bankruptcy (‘West Virginia Polluter Freedom Industries Files For Bankruptcy To Halt Lawsuits’ -Desmogblog).
    And of course, the CDC, which said 1 part per million in water was safe, later back-tracked and said perhaps pregnant women should not drink it; and their ‘assessment’ was based on one very small Industry test, done on a tiny sample of rats!! (‘Our Toxicity Experiment in West Virginia’ – wired.com).
    Does anyone STILL believe in Government Agency safety standards? The House speaker, Ohio Republican John Boehner, made a point of reminding us that we already have too much regulation.
    And in the upcoming elections, both Republican and Democrat contenders are Corporate lobbyists.
    Check out the articles.

  49. TheNT says

    Hey, Chris. I suggest you link all your readers to the following articles. They would do well to understand the “backfire effect”, since they only demonstrate how common and widespread it is.

    http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

    http://bigthink.com/think-tank/the-backfire-effect-why-facts-dont-win-arguments

    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

    In other words, the facts that show evidence against their position will only further entrench them into their beliefs and worldviews. In this case, it happens to be that eating seafood is unsafe due to radiation.

    Here is a perfect example of the backfire effect in action:

    You wrote: “You have provided no evidence to support your claims. If you have evidence supporting the idea that eating seafood from the Pacific exposes us to harmful levels of radiation, I’d love to see it.”

    They replied: “Do you honestly believe there would be public evidence of my statements?? It would cause mass panic and unrest. I don’t need evidence. I use my common sense. Evidence doesn’t over-rule common sense. Evidence is man-made. Common sense is God-given. Who do you trust?”

    A beautiful illustration!

  50. Vicki Cox says

    Sorry but I don’t believe that. One year after the Fukushima incident (April 2012) I did some research concerning the level of radiation in the ground in Arizona, resulting from the Fukushima incident. The level of radiation in the ground here was over 1600 times what the FDA had previously determined tolerable to the human body. The data has since been changed.
    Unfortunately, statistical research and peer reviewed information can be tweaked for the common good. Those who would simply do not want to create fear.
    Be careful, be very careful.

  51. Paul Barbara says

    The Government(s) have a habit of pandering to the requests (or demands!) of the Corporations.
    Look at ‘Deregulastion’ (food hygiene, Banks, you name it) and shifting the ‘safety margins’ ever upwards, allowing more of the offending substance/radiation to be classed as ‘safe’.
    Here is a good example: Deregulation facilitated the Elk River toxic spill; the President of Freedom Industries was so concerned (about answering questions!) that he cut the interview short after two or three questions:
    ‘GARY SOUTHERN, PRESIDENT, FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: We were aware of the leaking storage tank around 10:30. We load tank trucks of this material on a regular basis, and occasionally we’ve had reports of an odor previously. So we were first aware of any material being spilled at 10:30 yesterday.
    CALLIE KART, REPORTER, WCHS: Could it have been earlier than yesterday? ‘Cause we’ve also received reports into our newsroom that it was as early as Wednesday, possibly Tuesday, people were starting to smell this in the area.
    SOUTHERN: We have no information on that.
    KART: Are there no systems in place to alert you of a leak at your facility other than a smell?
    SOUTHERN: At this moment in time, I think that’s all we have time for. So thanks for coming. Thanks for your time.'(RealNews Network).
    ‘Now they’re starting–today they’re starting to lift–they’re starting to flush out the system. They say they have the chemical down to below one part per million, which they say is a safe level, although I heard an interview with the spokesperson for the water company today, and she was asked, you can still smell this. You know, a lot of people are still smelling it. It’s got this licorice smell. How can it be safe if you can smell it? And she says, we’ve been told by the CDC that one part per million is safe..'(RealNewsNetwork) (and you KNOW the CDC wouldn’t lie to you, now don’t you??)
    Another case, in my neck of the woods, this side of the Pond, the Camelford water pollution incident (worst industrial poisoning case in UK history).
    ‘Immediately after the contamination the authorities said that the water was safe to drink, possibly with juice to cover the unpleasant taste. In an inquest in 2012 into the death of one of the victims, the coroner stated that South West Water Authority had been “gambling with as many as 20,000 lives” when they failed to inform the public about the poisoning for 16 days, a delay he called unacceptable….’ (it’s woorth reading the whole Wiki article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camelford_water_pollution_incident.
    Did the US Government warn the public there might be an ‘Anthrax attack’ after 9/11? Only their buddies, who got inoculated. Not only did they not warn the public, they were pretty sure their ‘crystal ball’ wouldn’t let them down (a bit like warning not to fly sent out to a select few just before 9/11).
    The ‘Homeland Security’ scam is not to protect the people, but to control and contain them. Think Katrina, only far far worse.
    If you can get indepedent radiation tests done on Pacific seafood, great. If not, go with the ‘precautionary principal’, particularly if you are pregnant, or are feeding young children.

  52. says

    There is no question that the fish and sea life in the Pacific Ocean is majorly contaminated with radiation! The Governments will not admit to this fact and they attempt to hide these facts by upping the safety limits for human exposure to radiation that has already been in effect for many years! Anyone that has been eating Pacific Ocean fish and sea life should educate themselves about the ingest able mineral zeolite that does an incredible job of removing radiation from the body. Check out the website at http://www.zeolite.com

  53. Wendy says

    I just was tested for heavy metal toxicity last week, and my results show an alarming amount of current exposure to Thallium. This is radioactive and builds up in seafood and shellfish. I eat seafood only from the Pacific. This is my only possible source of such heavy exposure. I am deeply alarmed and cannot ignore this result. My body is more relevant to me than the cluster*mess* of peer review.

    • dr fungus says

      HI WENDY this forum should be renamed IS IT SAFE TO LIVE ON PLANET EARTH thalium is naturaly occurring substance in earth crust also metal smelters burning coal and all other polluting industries using oceans as garbage disposals rain brings all this heavy metals down to earth from volcanos as well,plants animals and us are inhaling it eating it or drinking, so dont panic open another can of tuna, but by all means grow garden wormwood and it will expel heavy metals and toxins from your body. CANDIDA is biggest killer world wide and nobody is talking about it due to our medical science disquising it under trillions of fancy diagnostic names which don’t even exist.yes fukushima is disaster what shal we do jump of the planet.25 years ago one of the tv channels in oz had group of pregnant women who were on healthy diet and one group who were not on healthy diet,they have taken blood samples from each group and send them to texas laboratories for full most comprehensive test available on the planet at that time ,and guess what both groups of pregnant women had same blood results ,so don’t waste your money in panic this is healthy that is good for our health,just watch you don’t feed candida as it is a mother of almost any disease.last one avoid concentrated foods are they juices or solids as they overload body with phosphorus which then pushes calcium from the bones into blood.HAPPY PANICKING TO YOU ALL.and don’t trust scientists as they are biased by who pays them.

      • Paul Barbara says

        The major causes of calcium being efluxed from the brain are cell phones and WI-FI (see Barrie Trower http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjyfpVRPUVQ&list=PLEF47E5563AA26446 (parts 1 – 13).
        I agree with your statement ‘don’t trust scientists as they are biased by who pays them'; and who do you think has the biggest pockets, the Corporations who cause the problems, and pay off the politicians, or Joe Public?
        And who do you think funds most University projects?

    • Elle says

      Wendy, did you ever find out how you got Thallium toxicity and how did you treat it? My partner & I were testing our mercury levels and found out we also had high Thallium (potassium/copper imbalance as well) in our hair and stool tests. We know the exact week we had exposure but do not know the exact cause (top contenders are “organic” farmed salmon from canada that we mistook for wild (a dozen times from a local popular salad restaurant) and a broken mercury-free Geratherm basil body thermometer made of a similar thallium metal (GALINSTAN mainly consisting of gallium, indium, & tin from a German company that claims it is non-toxic). We had fevers, aches and slept a lot. Wonder how many people in the Bay Area are also getting high Thallium exposure but don’t know it because they think they just have an illness but haven’t tested. Any thoughts, Chris and co.?

  54. Amir says

    Nuclear apologists pretend that people are exposed to more radiation from bananas than from Fukushima.

    But unlike low-levels of radioactive potassium found in bananas – which our bodies have adapted to over many years – cesium-137 and iodine 131 are brand new, extremely dangerous substances.

    The EPA explains:

    The human body is born with potassium-40 [the type of radiation found in bananas] in its tissues and it is the most common radionuclide in human tissues and in food. Weevolved in the presence of potassium-40 and our bodies have well-developedrepair mechanisms to respond to its effects. The concentration of potassium-40 in the human body is constant and not affected by concentrations in the environment.

    Wikipedia notes:

    The amount of potassium (and therefore of 40K) in the human body is fairly constant because of homeostatsis, so that any excess absorbed from food is quickly compensated by the elimination of an equal amount.

    It follows that the additional radiation exposure due to eating a banana lasts only for a few hours after ingestion, namely the time it takes for the normal potassium contents of the body to be restored by the kidneys.

    BoingBoing reports:

    A lot of things you might not suspect of being radioactive are, including Brazil nuts, and your own body. And this fact is sometimes used to downplay the impact of exposure to radiation via medical treatments or accidental intake.

    ***

    I contacted Geoff Meggitt—a retired health physicist, and former editor of the Journal of Radiological Protection—to find out more.

    Meggitt worked for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and its later commercial offshoots for 25 years. He says there’s an enormous variation in the risks associated with swallowing the same amount of different radioactive materials—and even some difference between the same dose, of the same material, but in different chemical forms.

    It all depends on two factors:

    1) The physical characteristics of the radioactivity—i.e, What’s its half-life? Is the radiation emitted alpha, beta or gamma?

    2) The way the the radioactivity travels around and is taken up by the body—i.e., How much is absorbed by the blood stream? What tissues does this specific isotope tend to accumulate in?

    The Potassium-40 in bananas is a particularly poor model isotope to use, Meggitt says, because the potassium content of our bodies seems to be under homeostatic control.When you eat a banana, your body’s level of Potassium-40 doesn’t increase. You just get rid of some excess Potassium-40. The net dose of a banana is zero.

    And that’s the difference between a useful educational tool and propaganda. (And I say this as somebody who is emphatically not against nuclear energy.) Bananas aren’t really going to give anyone “a more realistic assessment of actual risk”, they’re just going to further distort the picture.

    Mixing Apples (External) and Oranges (Internal)

    Moreover, radioactive particles which end up inside of our lungs or gastrointestinal track, as opposed to radiation which comes to us from outside of our skin are much more dangerous than general exposures to radiation.

    The National Research Council’s Committee to Assess the Scientific Information for the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program explains:

    Radioactivity generates radiation by emitting particles. Radioactive materials outside the the body are called external emitters, and radioactive materials located within the body are called internal emitters.

    Internal emitters are much more dangerous than external emitters. Specifically, one is only exposed to radiation as long as he or she is near the external emitter.

    For example, when you get an x-ray, an external emitter is turned on for an instant, and then switched back off.

    But internal emitters steadily and continuously emit radiation for as long as the particle remains radioactive, or until the person dies – whichever occurs first. As such, they are much more dangerous.

    As the head of a Tokyo-area medical clinic – Dr. Junro Fuse, Internist and head of Kosugi Medical Clinic – said:

    Risk from internal exposure is 200-600 times greater than risk from external exposure.

    See this, this, this and this.

    By way of analogy, external emitters are like dodgeballs being thrown at you. If you get hit, it might hurt. But it’s unlikely you’ll get hit again in the same spot.

    Internal emitters – on the other hand – are like a black belt martial artist moving in really close and hammering you again and again and again in the exact same spot. That can do real damage.

    There are few natural high-dose internal emitters. Bananas, brazil nuts and some other foods contain radioactive potassium-40, but in extremely low doses. But – as explained above – our bodies have adapted to handle this type of radiation.

    True, some parts of the country are at higher risk of exposure to naturally-occurring radium than others.

    But the cesium which was scattered all over the place by above-ground nuclear tests and the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents has a much longer half life, and can easily contaminate food and water supplies. As the New York Times notes:

    Over the long term, the big threat to human health is cesium-137, which has a half-life of 30 years.

    At that rate of disintegration, John Emsley wrote in “Nature’s Building Blocks” (Oxford, 2001), “it takes over 200 years to reduce it to 1 percent of its former level.”

    It is cesium-137 that still contaminates much of the land in Ukraine around the Chernobyl reactor.

    ***

    Cesium-137 mixes easily with water and is chemically similar to potassium. It thus mimics how potassium gets metabolized in the body and can enter through many foods, including milk.

    As the EPA notes in a discussion entitled ” What can I do to protect myself and my family from cesium-137?”:

    Cesium-137 that is dispersed in the environment, like that from atmospheric testing, is impossible to avoid.

    Radioactive iodine can also become a potent internal emitter. As the Times notes:

    Iodine-131 has a half-life of eight days and is quite dangerous to human health. If absorbed through contaminated food, especially milk and milk products, it will accumulate in the thyroid and cause cancer.

    (In addition to spewing massive amounts of radioactive iodine 131, Fukushima also pumped out huge amounts of radioactive iodine 129 – which has a half-life of 15.7 million years. Fukushima has also dumped up to 900 trillion becquerels of radioactive strontium-90 – which is a powerful internal emitter which mimics calcium and collects in our bones – into the ocean.).

    The bottom line is that there is some naturally-occurring background radiation, which can – at times – pose a health hazard (especially in parts of the country with high levels of radioactive radon or radium).

    But cesium-137 and radioactive iodine – the two main radioactive substances being spewed by the leaking Japanese nuclear plants – are not naturally-occurring substances, and can become powerful internal emitters which can cause tremendous damage to the health of people who are unfortunate enough to breathe in even a particle of the substances, or ingest them in food or water.

    Unlike low-levels of radioactive potassium found in bananas – which our bodies have adapted to over many years – cesium-137 and iodine 131 are brand new, extremely dangerous substances.

    And unlike naturally-occurring internal emitters like radon and radium – whose distribution is largely concentrated in certain areas of the country – radioactive cesium and iodine, as well as strontium and other dangerous radionuclides, are being distributed globally through weapons testing and nuclear accidents.

    • Altair-IV says

      Amir – you don’t understand that there may be many radioactive isotopes, some of them new – but there is only 3 types of nuclear radiation from them – alpha, beta, and gamma.

      For example, Potassium-40 (K-40) is primarily a beta emitter; that means it emits a high energy electron. Cesium-134 and Cesium-137 are also beta emitters.

      So even though Cesium-134 and Cesium-137 are different from Potassium-40; the radiation that they emit is NOT. They type of biological damage done by the radiation from all the above isotopes is the same. Hence, the same radiation damage repair mechanism that we evolved that repairs damage from naturally occuring K-40 also repairs the IDENTICAL damage done by Cs-134 and Cs-137.

    • Amir says

      Amir; you also don’t understand the concept of “committed dose”. You state that internal emitters are different because they in essence “stay on” longer than the X-ray that is switched on and then off.

      However, what you don’t understand is that when someone tells you what the dose is for an internal emitter, that is the “committed dose” – that dose ADDS UP all the dose for the life of the radioactive material. Therefore, the fact that the internal emitter stays on longer is already being accounted for in the quotation of the dose.

      So if someone compares 5 mrem of internal emitter dose to 10 mrem of external emitter dose; the total dose due to that internal emitter for ALL the time it takes to decay is LESS than the amount of radiation received in that quick on cycle for the external emitter.

      Because radiation damage is correlated to dose rate; 10 mrem of external emitter over a short duration is clearly biologically MORE damaging than 5 mrem of internal emitter over a longer duration.

  55. says

    From others and my research I feel that the entire Pacific ocean is contaminated with Fukushima radiation! Genetic DNA changes in fish, mammals and sea life have already been observed with increased deformities and this is something to worry about if you are eating fish, shellfish or any kind of ocean life that is from the Pacific. If you feel that you have been radiated and you would like to detox the radiation from your body, do research on the mineral Zeolite that can safely remove the radiation. The best information resource for natural zeolite and how it removes radiation from the body can be found at http://www.zeolite.com

  56. Kate says

    The Fukushima disaster is just the icing on the cake. The “leaders” of the human species has been detonating experimental nuclear bombs for decades, and leeching chemicals into our land, and the chemicals contaminate our drinking water and our oceans.

    Can we do anything to stop it? I’m sure we can, but I’m sitting here on my bum in front of the computer typing away… So I guess saving the earth is not on the top of my agenda.

    Hey… Maybe all the radiation and chemicals we’ve been exposed to has altered our DNA to withstand it. Those GMO foods we’ve been fed may have facilitated the mutation. (It’s all satire. Don’t take it seriously).

    • Paul Barbara says

      Your not wasting your time, Kate. Putting info into these sites, to try to awaken people to nuclear and other dangers, is one of the things we can do.
      It’s an awful uphill struggle, though, because some people just don’t want to believe this stuff, and think ‘If there was a problem the government would sort it out.
      It is a huge step for them to even contmplate the fact that the government ARE the problem, running the country/countries for the benefit of Corporations and Banksters.
      The web is an extremmely good tool for exploring alternative news and views than those presented by government ans the MSM, who are owned or controlled by the Corporations (or sometimes, directly by CIA fronts!).
      People should make use of the web while we have it, because the PTB are not at all happy with it’s open nature, and are working diligently to try to bring it to heel.

      • Altair-IV says

        The real problem is the web and all the people that are saying things when they have absolutely ZERO expertise in the subject.

        The amount of MISINFORMATION about Fukushima that is on the web is ASTOUNDING!!!

  57. Paul says

    I have a personal radiation detector, and I tested yellow tail form my favorite sushi joint. I did it the right way, and reduced it to ash before testing it. I also did a timed test and made sure it was a controlled environment and checked the back ground radiation. The radiation in the yellow tail was 27% higher than the back ground radiation. From what I have read on testing food, that’s pretty bad. Like any increase at all detectable in food with an instrument like I have is supposedly bad. You body accumulates it, correct? Also, eating food contaminated with radiation is not like exposure. It’s frustrating to see these articles compare exposure to eating contaminated food. It really downplays the risks. A woman who is considering conceiving a child should definitely not eat the fish I tested, and I am discouraging my friends and especially their kids form eating pacific tuna until they start testing ALL the fish. my .02

    • Altair-IV says

      Paul your personal radiation detector is INCAPABLE of detecting radioactivity from Fukushima. That is because the levels from Fukushima are so low that they are masked by normal background radiation. The ONLY way to detect radioactivity from Fukushima is to have a radiation detector that can do spectroscopy. Your personal radiation detector can’t do spectroscopy. Only liquid-nitrogen cooled Germanium and Lithium-drifted Germanium (Ge(Li)) detectors can do spectroscopy and can see the signal from Fukushima.

      See the following from radiation detection experts at University of California – Berkeley:

      http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/brawm-question-testing-food-geiger-counter.2012-06-13#comment-25341

      “Geiger counters are rather blunt instruments; they can detect radioactivity but they cannot tell you which isotope is responsible for it. One might detect radioactivity using one of these instruments, but there is plenty of benign natural radiation out there (e.g., where does the 38 CPM of the background test come from?). A Geiger counter would really only be useful for finding contamination in northeast Japan and nowhere else in the world.”

    • Altair-IV says

      Paul, evidently you don’t understand that food is NATURALLY radioactive. Have you never heard of Carbon-14 dating? The reason we know how old the Pharoahs of ancient Egypt are is because we can measure the decay of the natural radioactivity in the food the ancient Egyptians were eating. Sure your food is more radioactive than background; you would have obtained the SAME result BEFORE Fukushima.

      Your personal radiation detector is INCAPABLE of seeing the Fukushima signal buried in the sea of natural radiation as explained in the link to radiation detection experts at University of California – Berkeley from my other post.

  58. says

    An intensive study (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121113134224.htm) done by the University of South Carolina and University of Paris-Sud and published in Biological Reviews in 2012 concluded that even low levels of radioactivity are damaging to human and animal health.

    “With the levels of contamination that we have seen as a result of nuclear power plants, especially in the past, and even as a result of Chernobyl and Fukushima and related accidents, there’s an attempt in the industry to downplay the doses that the populations are getting, because maybe it’s only one or two times beyond what is thought to be the natural background level,” said one of the study’s authors, University of South Carolina co-author Timothy Mousseau. “But they’re assuming the natural background levels are fine.” The study showed emphatically that they are not.

    http://news.msn.com/science-technology/fukushima-fallout-should-you-eat-pacific-fish

  59. silas says

    “Given the evidence above, how can any rational person believe the public is being kept properly informed about the degree of damage and dangers emanating from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster? When governments and inter-governmental agencies from the United Nations, like the IAEA, conspire in writing to conceal information from the public, how can anyone trust these public servants?”

    http://www.turnerradionetwork.com/news/180-mjt

    • Paul Barbara says

      They are doing the same with cell phone, WI-FI, GMO’s, Hi-Tension electric power lines, ‘Smart’ meters, bovine growth hormones and other dangers.

  60. silas says

    36 Signs The Media Is Lying To You About How Radiation From Fukushima Is Affecting The West Coast

    http://thetruthwins.com/archives/36-signs-the-media-is-lying-to-you-about-how-radiation-from-fukushima-is-affecting-the-west-coast

    Obviously, Chris Kresser doesn’t think this topic is important anymore and if you follow his advice you may be on your road to cancer and other radiation-related illnesses. Hopefully people are reading the comments so that they can learn the truth.

    Chris Kresser, don’t you think your readers deserve the truth?? Or, maybe you can’t make as much money if you tell the truth????? Where are your priorities Chris Kresser????

    • Ryuga says

      Silas, people are not going to be convinced by a website with a Christian agenda.
      Also, truth is a very vague word.

      • silas says

        Ryuga, good thing all the facts are backed up in that website. Did you even read the article? Each point has a reference for you to check out the validity of it. Also, this is not my first post on this topic. If you read back in the comments you will see I have presented tons of info that disproves Chris Kressers recommendations.

      • Dave says

        How to destroy the validity of your blog post? Have an xian agenda lol! I personally ignore blogs, they can be written by anyone, have little to no facts rooted in science and there are a shit ton of them. Just passing time here basically and laughing at all the fear mongering.

      • Paul Barbara says

        Personally I am delighted to find a website with a ‘Christian Agenda’ that tries to spread the Truth; and irrespective of the ‘agenda’, the list of 36 articles are not from Christian sources.
        All too often, mainstream ‘Christian’ sites will just back official declarations, no matter how absurd.
        And any site, or individual, who pushes the line that the US is ‘safe’ from Fukushima fallout and coastal pollution is living in ‘cloud cuckoo land’.

          • Nancy says

            Paul points out what most people are not willing to consider. Perhaps the bigger picture makes people too uncomfortable.

            • Paul Barbara says

              Thanks, Nancy. I shouldn’t worry about ‘Dave'; he sets out his agenda a few comments back!
              Good to have a ‘Truth Seeker’ on board; check the links out.
              I have a relative & her family living on the California coast, so I have a personal as well as a ‘general’ duty to try to warn folks.

              • Dave says

                Paul, you are fearmongering on data that has not been collected yet. Chill, don’t eat the fish, give it a few years, you need not go into panic mode and move to South America, besides, radiation is not static, it will make it there eventually too if it is that bad. Every consider the fact the Pacific has had thousands of nuclear weapons already tested in it?

  61. Tiffany says

    • Nancy says

      That particular list of links are more reputable than some of the others presented here. So, yes, more reliable sources, pointing to alarming news can be cause for discomfort.

    • Altair-IV says

      With regard to the link about radiation and bananas.

      It is true that humans have a radiation damage repair mechanism because we evolved exposed to Mother Nature’s radiation. However, the radiation damage repair mechanism can’t tell whether the radiation that caused the damage came from natural Potassium-40, or a man-made radioisotope.

      The radiation damage repair mechanism that protects us from Mother Nature’s radiation works just as well at protecting us from the radiation that humans create.

      Recent research at Lawrence Berkeley National Labs and published in the highly prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Science:

      http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2011/12/20/low-dose-radiation/

      “Our data show that at lower doses of ionizing radiation, DNA repair mechanisms work much better than at higher doses,” says Mina Bissell, a world-renowned breast cancer researcher with Berkeley Lab’s Life Sciences Division. “This non-linear DNA damage response casts doubt on the general assumption that any amount of ionizing radiation is harmful and additive.”

  62. Paul Barbara says

    Quite right, but very few people would believe in that kind of coincidence,
    A bit like the government dismissal of clusters of cancers around nuclear plants and Telecom microwave towers.
    What is for certain (though I know some studies, both of nuclear radiation and microwave exposure, have so skewed statistics to try to show these things are actually GOOD for us, I don’t think they fool too many folks.

    • Altair-IV says

      This is more MISINFORMATION. According to the National Cancer Institue there is NO higher incidence of cancer around nuclear facilities:

      “No Excess Mortality Risk Found in Counties with Nuclear Facilities”

      http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/nuclear-facilities

      This was a peer reviewed study published in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association.

      Smaller, less statistically accurate, studies claimed a correlation; and this larger, more statistically accurate study was thereby prompted. It SUPERCEDES the less accurate studies that showed a correlation.

      • Paul Barbara says

        Hmm, prestigious? Such a thing.
        I have just attended, this evening, a talk about the influence of AWE (Atomic Weapons Establishment) on UK Universities; apparently they fund programs in approaching half of British Universities (check Nuclear Information Service and Medac). Universities are cash-strapped (unless they are Corporate funded; Governments also are Corporate Funded, so won’t ‘bite the hand that feeds them’.). They follow the Corporate line.
        A very good example is Barrie Trower; involved with microwave warfare research in the Brit military in the ’60’s, and later researching it in Uni, he had two degrees.
        When a mullti-millionaire (probably Sir David Attenborough) invited him to prove his thesis of the dangers of cell phones, Wi-Fi and ‘Tetra’, and offered to fund all his reasearch, he approached the Uni he had studied at, Exeter University, 10th most prestigious in the UK (he stated), to get permission to research the issue (cost-free to the Uni). They did not reply.
        When he contacted them again, they siaid, simply, ‘Do not contact us ever again’.
        He applied to about 6 other Uni’s; those who replied, declined. He then approched the prestigious ‘Open University'; they also did not reply. When he recontacted them, they said ‘We cannot accept you'; when he asked ‘Why?’ they replied ‘It is TOO POLITICAL’.
        The safety of school children, unborn foetuses and the general public ‘TOO POLITICAL’?
        So much for academic integrity. Prestigeous? Pull the other one.
        Anyone interested in the cell-phone/Wi-Fi issue, go to ‘Bevolution’ + Barrie Trower.

        • Altair-IV says

          Read the posted citation. It was a small British study that found a correlation. The larger US study supercedes it.

          So your claim that the British Universities are doing the bidding of the corporate “nuclear industry” doesn’t hold water; the British study was the one that found the correlation. So they weren’t doing the bidding of the corporate “nuclear industry”.

          In any sense, the US JAMA journal IS prestigious, and peer-reviewed by good indepedent scientists. The US study was larger and more statistically accurate, and found no excess risk due to nuclear facilities.

          This is also in keeping with the measurements of good scientists. Courtesy of the Health Physics Society chapter at the University of Michigan:

          http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm

          The amount of radiation exposure that can be traced to the use of nuclear power ( nuclear fuel cycle in table ) is LESS than 0.03% of your radiation exposure.

          Mother Nature exposes you to OVER 3000 TIMES as much radiation as does nuclear power.

          • Paul Barbara says

            Wi-Fi – A Thalidomide in the Making. Who Cares?

            As stated by University Researchers, Government Scientists and International Scientific Advisors; a minimum of 57.7% of schoolgirls exposed to low-level microwave radiation (Wi-fi) are at risk of suffering stillbirth, foetal abnormalities or genetically damaged children, when they give birth. Any genetic damage may pass to successive generations.

            by Barrie Trower | Devon, UK | Saturday, 24 August, 2013
            http://communitypressgroup.com/articles/wi-fi-a-thalidomide-in-the-mak ing/

            ‘“Of the microwave-exposed women, 47.7% had miscarriages prior to the 7th week of pregnancy….” (1)

            The level of irradiation incident upon the women was stated, as from, five microwatts per centimetre squared. This level of irradiation may seem meaningless to a non-scientist; however, when I say that it is below what most schoolgirls will receive in a classroom of wi-fi transmitters, from the age of approximately five years upwards, this level becomes more meaningful…’

            ‘With these few of the roughly 8000 research articles showing this phenomena; in order to protect this industries’ profit, the United States Defence Intelligence Agency sent a ‘document’ to ‘advanced nations’ describing the problem and suggesting ‘how to deceive the public’.

            It reads:

            “…..if the more advanced nations of the West are strict in the enforcement of stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavourable effects on industrial output…..exposed to microwave radiation below thermal levels experience more…..” (8)

            NB: Industrial output is of course…profit. A very relaxed exposure standard also makes it very difficult to take the industry to court.

            This (and two other documents with ref. 8) then continues to list many physiological and neurological dangers from low-level: below thermal, microwave irradiation inc: blood disorders, heart problems, psychiatric symptoms and ‘menstrual disorders’.

            *Wi-fi is of course, below thermal low-level microwave irradiation.*

            In order to appease the US Government, some Governments adopted the ICNIRP guideline, whereby, the only safety limit is just six-minutes of warming. Which means: if you do not feel too warm in six minutes, wi-fi is deemed to be safe…’

            ‘Warning: Using a mobile phone while pregnant can seriously damage your baby':
            http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/warning-using-a-mobile-phone-while-pregnant-can-seriously-damage-your-baby-830352.html

            Again, for an EXPERT view of cell-phone and WiFi dangers, go to ‘Bevolution + Barrie Trower’.

            Sure there are conflicting studies; many by Universities, individuals or Governments funded and/or lobbied by the industry.

            In the case of Barrie Trower, despite a multi-millionaire offering to fund all costs for Barrie to prove his claims (he is an EXPERT and has all the necessary credentials to do a University Research Project, his own Uni, Essex, told him ‘never to contact them again'; six others either didn’t respond, or refused him outright, and the Open University declined, saying the project was ‘too political’ (see above for United States Defence Intelligence Agency ‘document’).

            • Altair-IV says

              Evidently you don’t understand that we in the scientific community have ways to resolve the discrepancies among studies.

              We don’t just look at a single study and “run with it”; but we look at the totality of studies. They scientific societies like the American Physical Society and the Health Physics Society arrive at a scientific consensus which they put forward.

              The scientific consensus is that microwaves and power line EMF; which are non-ionizing ( that is the photons lack the energy required to kick even the most loosely bound electron out of its orbit ) are of no danger; the flotsam from individual studies notwithstanding.

          • Paul Barbara says

            Insurance Firms Refusing To Cover Mobile Phone Health Claims – Begin Forecasting Brain Tumour Costs Between 2020-2030 – See more at: http://stopsmartmeters.org.uk/insurance-cos-refusing-to-cover-mobile-phone-health-claims-begin-forecasting-brain-tumour-costs-between-2020-2030/

            ‘Wendy Mesley reports about how many insurance companies are not covering cell phone manufacturers and wireless carriers – 60% refuse to insure purveyors against future health damage suits. Dr. Devra Davis interviewed.

            What do big insurance firms know that most wireless device users do not? Why are you not being told about these risks?’

        • Altair-IV says

          Let’s see; Trower approaches a number of reputable Universities, and they all tell him to “Get Lost”. From this the conclusion is made that the Universities have something to hide. More likely, high school teacher Trower wasn’t up to the academic requirements of the Universities.

          The USA used to have people protesting cell phone towers and filling lawsuits against the construction of cell towers. However today; it seems everyone has a cell phone, and are choosing cell carriers based on who has the most towers. Cell towers are everywhere.

          Yet; after a couple decades of cell towers being everywhere; the forecast “epidemic” of cell phone induced maladies hasn’t materialized.

          I think the cell towers are here for good.

  63. Evan says

    I know this isn’t a study but my own observation at Malibu Beach last weekend…
    My kids and I were looking for creatures in the tide pools and we found absolutely nothing that was alive. No crabs under rocks, no anenomes, no hermit crabs.

    • Paul Barbara says

      Other sites have said the same thing about rock-pools devoid of life.
      What does the ‘Government’ and it’s ‘protection agencies’ do? Curtail testing! How much more evidence do people need, before they realize that the Government doesn’t care a toss for the people, it serves the Corporations and Banksters who fund them and put them in power; same with the Senate, Congress, Police, Military and ‘Justice’ Departments.
      CDC washes it’s hands of Morgellons, after a sham ‘investigation'; yet after two or three years, they were unable to identify the fibres; I believe they said ‘they seem to be cellulose’. ‘Seem to be?’ These guys should determine what they are made of, and how they come to grow from peoples bodies.
      Then of course, we have Monsanto’s GMO’s foisted on us by a compliant Government, microwave and WI-FI communications passed as ‘safe'; all kinds of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides; fluoride in water; orders to stop testing for aluminum in the water when it rose sky-high due to Chemtrails; lies about about the BP Gulf blowout; bovine growth hormone foisted on the public in milk; ‘War on Drugs’ (when a short search of the internet will show that the CIA is the world’s No.1 drug trafficker); ‘War on Terror’ when the US is the No.1 Terrorist State on the Planet; Multi-billion bailouts for the most corrupt Banksters, instead of long prison terms; ad infinitum.
      I nearly forgot: now Dow Chemical has asked for permission to release Genetically Modified corn and soya, that can withstand 2-4-D, of ‘Agent Orange’ notoriety, as Roundup is becoming less effective!

      • Nancy says

        Paul, well said! Life on earth seems to be under attack. Many people have not connected the dots and don’t even realize it. Do you know who/what/why is doing this? It seems to be more than just chance, imo.

        • Paul Barbara says

          It’s the NWO Banksters and their puppets. The same families that funded the Bolsheviks and the Nazis: check out Prescott Bush + Nazi Front Bank. The Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Morgans, Carnegies, Harrimans, Shiffs and Warburgs and their descendents seem to have it sown up.
          Wars are extremely profitable; they also make the people compliant with the ‘Government’, and focused on defeating the demonised ‘enemy’, rather than how they are being screwed by the system.
          Check out Federal Reserve + Jekyll Island; Woodrow Wilson sold the country down the river, and realised it before he died.
          The end game is a much reduced slave population, with a One World Government. Search this stuff; there is plenty on the web, some good, some disinfo.
          I’d better get back on topic, and answer Dave below!

      • Dave says

        Paul, you just want to get yourself all worked up about something that may or may not be happening. Again, correlation does not equal causation. Do you know how much nuclear waste is in the Pacific already from bomb testing? You cannot set off 8,000 atomic bombs and expect the ocean to be pristine. I suggest you stop worry about Fukushima and worry about all the seafood you ate before Fukushima lol! Also, there is NOTHING you can do about it other than avoid seafood so why bother worrying? Pointless.

        • Paul Barbara says

          Dave, you are missing the point. If you check the site I referred to, you would have read “In March 2012, less than one percent of the seafloor beneath Station M was covered in dead sea salps,” writes Carrie Arnold for National Geographic. “By July 1, more than 98 percent of it was covered in the decomposing organisms. … The major increase in activity of deep-sea life in 2011 and 2012 weren’t limit to Station M, though: Other ocean-research stations reported similar data.”
          The point is, the huge rise in dead sea detritus, or ‘sea snot’ as it is referred to, occurred in just four months, so it wasn’t anything to do with atomic bomb tests decades ago. With that in mind, wouldn’t you suspect Fukushima?
          And why don’t the government agencies get their finger out and find out what is going on? Perhaps not upsetting the Nuclear Industry is more important than a potential global catastrophe.
          Whilst it’s true there is not much I can do about it (other than avoid Pacific fish),I can try to push forward this thread, so that other people are likely to check what is known more stringently, and not just accept the Government line that the fish is safe.
          I doubt if they would serve Pacific fish in the White House or Congress cafeterias!

          • Dave says

            No I am not missing the point Paul. Correlation still does not equal causation in this case. Do you have the direct proof that it is caused by radiation? That it wasn’t caused by past radiation from bombs? Maybe the bombs combined with other pollutants finally got to a tipping point and caused it? Maybe it was caused by some toxic leak close by from some sewer system? Maybe a nuclear submarine dumped its spent fuel? Maybe you are pulling ideas out of your ass like I just did? Get real here Paul. No scientific proof equals no argument from you that is valid. You lose credibility when you do not have the scientific proof to back you up so just give it a rest until the evidence comes in that is bulletproof. Patience buddy. Stop being a fearmonger. You might live longer.

          • Altair-IV says

            I agree with Dave. How does one know that this isn’t normal; much like some of the massive die offs of insects one sees on land.

            Additionally, there was all the radiation from the nuclear weapon testing in the Pacific; and life recovered enough so that there was 1% dead material before Fukushima.

            How do we know that the life on the floor of the ocean won’t recover again; especially since the amount of radioactivity released this time is less?

            Many possibilities; that is why it is NOT scientifically justifiable to draw the conclusions that Paul is drawing.

    • Nancy says

      Thanks for pointing out your personal observation. It seems way too many people have their heads in the sand.

  64. Paul Barbara says

    I just checked out Silas’ link above: everyone should read it. It is titled ‘Study: Dead sea creatures cover 98 percent of ocean floor off California coast; up from 1 percent before Fukushima’.
    A blog worth visiting is http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/03/government-responds-to-nuclear-accident-by-trying-to-raise-acceptable-radiation-levels-and-pretending-that-radiation-is-good-for-us.html
    Here are parts of it: ‘ In 1992, the EPA produced a PAGs manual that answers many of these questions. But now an update to the 1992 manual is being planned, and if the “Dr. Strangelove” wing of the EPA has its way, here is what it means (brace yourself for these ludicrous increases):
    ■ A nearly 1000-fold increase for exposure to strontium-90;
    ■A 3000 to 100,000-fold hike for exposure to iodine-131; and
    ■An almost 25,000 rise for exposure to radioactive nickel-63.
    The new radiation guidelines would also allow long-term cleanup thresholds thousands of times more lax than anything EPA has ever judged safe in the past:
    and: ‘Environmentalists might naively assume that the EPA is always on the side of the environment and human health. However, the EPA has become thoroughly politicized, and has been instrumental in many recent cover ups. For example, as Newsday noted in 2003:

    In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center, the White House instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to give the public misleading information, telling New Yorkers it was safe to breathe when reliable information on air quality was not available.

    That finding is included in a report released Friday by the Office of the Inspector General of the EPA.

    The senior policy analyst at the EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and former the EPA ombudsman’s chief investigator accused the EPA of “doing a cover up” regarding the use of dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico, and said government agencies such as the EPA have been “sock puppets” for BP in this cover up”.

    It is up to concerned citizens to get testing stations set up; you cannot trust the government, even if they do bother to test. Remember, governments lie: they serve the corporations and banks, not the people.

    • Dave says

      Correlation does not equal causation Paul (re: the dead sea creatures). Surely you are not fear mongering just to fear monger without thinking it through?

  65. john corsino says

    you are kidding right ? 300 tons of HIGHLY radioactive water pouring into the pacific and you are saying we arent eating enough ?
    better stop believing the lies.
    California halibut has just tested positive for cesium…stop the politicians approach comparing this to a banana.
    If you are willing to risk tyour life o listen to this joker who is obviously paid off by someone somewhere…lots of luck.
    I am a private chef and NOT serving anything from the Pacific to my clients. Los angeles and Portland are going to show a sharp decline in cancer these next 5 years,,,mark my words. Stewardesses are already coming up with a higher incidence of breast cancer from the Alaskan air flights as the radiation is in the atmosphere as well. Remember…this is 10Xs worse than Chernobyl and that place is deserted !

    • Roman says

      John, you wrote, “…are going to show a sharp decline in cancer these next 5 years…” You meant “increase”, not “decline”, didn’t you?

    • Altair-IV says

      The 300 tons is the weight of the WATER; and not the trace radioactive contaminant within it.

      It would be scientifically accurate to post the radioactivity in Becquerels; but that doesn’t get the headlines.

      Look at it this way; suppose they diluted that 300 tons with another 2700 tons of pure water. Then it would no longer be 300 tons of radioactive water, it would be 3,000 tons of radioactive water.

      But would it be any more harmful? NOPE!!!

  66. Adam Johnson says

    This is all lies. The ocean is totally full of radiation. Orcas, sea lions, eagles and all other animals that eat fish are dying. Wake up and smell the truth. Do not believe what this blogger says.

    http://www.infowars.com

    google: The truth about Fukushima. Protect yourselves and your families.

  67. silas says

    Chris Kresser,

    i know you are very busy promoting your new book. However, you have abandoned this conversation and, in turn, you have abandoned your readers/patients health education. Why have you not redacted your original statement in lieu of the overabundance of evidence against your original statement? i find this very disturbing and it leads me to believe that your intentions aren’t in the right place. Here is more evidence that YOU should consider before recommending people eat Pacific seafood: http://www.naturalnews.com/043380_Fukushima_radiation_ocean_life.html
    Chris, it’s time to swallow your pride and correct your original recommendations based on the overwhelming evidence supporting the dangers of Pacific seafood due to Fukushima.

  68. Twiggy says

    Internal radiation exposure of nuclear radiation is nothing akin to eating a banana. Scientists and doctors have had their data supressed for decades. I suggest you do some more research.

  69. Richard Forish says

    When number one on a google search for “fukushima radiation danger” gives me an acupuncturist, not exactly a nuclear expert, what can we do but shake our heads about the dearth of information on this topic?

    • Stephen Lonefeather says

      Seriously, Richard. Where have you been. The internet is chock full of Fukushima news. Admittedly you have to wade through the deniers and the doomsdayers and the self proclaimed experts, but there are many real experts out there keeping track of what’s going on and keeping the public informed. Start with Arnold Gundersen who is a former nuclear industry Expert and engineer with over 40 years of experience. He is now the head of Fairewinds.com an anti-nuclear group.

  70. silas says

    Over a year ago, in May of 2012, the Wall Street Journal reported on a Stanford University study. Daniel Madigan, a marine ecologist who led the study, was quoted as saying, “The tuna packaged it up (the radiation) and brought it across the world’s largest ocean. We were definitely surprised to see it at all and even more surprised to see it in every one we measured.”
    “We found that absolutely every one of them had comparable concentrations of cesium 134 and cesium 137.”

    http://topinfopost.com/2013/10/10/fukushima-is-here-all-bluefin-tuna-caught-in-california-are-radioactive

  71. silas says

    Chris Kresser,

    The first radiation related sickness stories are coming out now. Animals are dying by the hundreds in the Pacific and you still haven’t changed your recommendations. Very sad and very telling. Have you forgotten about this story and your duty to your readers???

    51 Sailors from USS Ronald Reagan Suffering Thyroid Cancer, Leukemia, Brain Tumors After Participating in Fukushima Nuclear Rescue Efforts
    http://www.turnerradionetwork.com/news/99-pat

  72. Sheena says

    What do you think about this news report that the milk in Hawaii has very high amounts of radiation…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afhoUFiigrc

    It seems a bit coincidental that this report follows an announcement that there is going to be large grass feed dairy farm coming to the Island of Kauai that will double the local supply of milk, significantly reducing imports.

    http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/24117696/dairy-farm-coming-to-kauai?utm_content=bufferc4d38&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=Buffer

    Any thoughts?

    –Sheena

    • Altair-IV says

      However, what is background varies all over the world. As Professor of Physics Richard Muller of the University of California – Berkeley Physics Department points out in his article, “The Panic Over Fukushima”:

      http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444772404577589270444059332

      The normal background level, which you claim is safe; for Denver, Colorado is THREE TIMES the radiation level one finds in Fukushima.

      So are the radiation levels in Fukushima to be considered dangerous because they are man-made; while radiation levels that are THREE TIMES HIGHER in Denver, Colorado to be considered safe because it’s only background radiation?

  73. Bob says

    Folks there are some ways to help mitigate the effects and ingestion of radionuclides from Fukushima and elsewhere. Certain foods protect us from ionizing radiological damage. Cruciferous veggies such as broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts, and others contain DIM, a substance that not only protects you from the damage of ionization, but also repairs DNA damaged by it. Google for this info, it’s a scientific fact. Zeolites have been used successfully at Chernobyl to help detox people, animals, and even crops. Ingestion of them (I take a liquid form myself) will help detox any heavy metal, chemical, and radionuclide out of the body safely. They contain positively charged cages that trap any negatively charged particle, binding them to the cage so they cannot escape. These are then carried out of the body thru the stools and urine. Some research shows that some forms of Vit. C that have been enveloped in fat will detox much radiation in the body. Activated charcoal will detox the stomach and colon of ingested particles. Make sure you drink plenty of filtered, clean water and that you move your bowels at least twice a day. Soaking in a tub of hot water filled with a cup of salt and a cup of baking soda will detox the skin and if you happen to walk in the rain which nowadays can be hot with radionuclides make sure you take a shower as soon a possible. There is much more one can do, you can research this yourselves. Good luck all… Fukushima is a game changer, I’m sorry to say.

    • Nancy says

      Thanks, Bob, for these helpful tips. I wonder what Chris has to say about this, too. I hope he does more research in this area, beyond the conventional sources.

  74. Dave says

    You forgot to mention what happens when the fish that migrate out into the Pacific ingest alpha emitting particulate from plutonium and uranium and are later eaten by people. There are studies on what happens to people when they ingest these alpha particles. What are the chances that salmon, a fish that actually migrates from the west coast to near the Fukushima site, could pick up such particulate? This is where the danger lies, not just in the background radiation from what I understand. No pro nuclear industry blogs seem to mention this fact. Hmmmm…..

    • Altair-IV says

      Dave – an alpha particle is the nucleus of the Helium-4 atom; which is INERT. An alpha particle itself, is also INERT and harmless.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_particle

      So what is the problem. The problem is if you encounter an energetic alpha particle emitted by a radioisotope. It’s the ENERGY of the freshly emitted alpha particle that is dangerous. However, once that energy is dissipated; which happens in a few inches of air, or in the thickness of a sheet of paper; then the alpha particle becomes harmless.

      So ingesting the alpha particle itself is NOT dangerous. Ingesting the parent radioisotope of the alpha particle is what is dangerous. Then the energy is dissipated in your tissues where it can cause damage.

  75. Christopher says

    Chris,

    Thanks for your often insightful articles. I just discovered your website recently and now see you all over the place. While there’s a general media blackout in the west, there is a fair amount of grounded, scientific data that’s beginning to arise, from reputable bodies all over the world. In this article, two of citations are PNAS. But your sources are sadly out of date. June 2013 is one thing, but to cite an 18-month old report is another and denies the ongoing, dynamic, and escalating problem. There is plenty of recent, well-grounded and tested scientific information becoming available. You just have to dig a little deeper.

    Here’s a presentation that gives more than enough information, specifically about cesium 137. If I remember correctly, the author stated that only 1/3 of ONE GRAM of cesium 137 is necessary to render 1 square mile atomically poisonous – essentially uninhabitable. It’s a water soluble molecule that is attracted to potassium, with a half life of 30 years. It’s estimated that it will be 180-320 years before land and water will completely abated of the particle. Cesium 137 is poisonous at the atomic level. This is what your sources are not talking about. You should watch this.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6FnRTVzthc&feature=share

    The Fukushima Daichi nuclear disaster is not your typical life event or even one of basic elevated importance – like news about gang violence, an economic downturn, a tornado ripping through a town and killing lots of people, or even the recent typhoon in the Philippines. Human beings will recover from all of those events. This is an urgent critical matter of the highest importance that threatens human survival mope than anything in the history of the planet. At least people talked about Hiroshima and other events. Those with public credibility have a responsibility to do their homework and share it appropriately. Your sources lack current information, two of three come from the same place, they lack in breadth of information and context, and there are too few sources to make such a decision. To simply say, “Well, this source says it’s OK and my neighbor is not sick, so I think it’s OK” – which is the tone of your article, isn’t enough.

    I implore you to look deeper into some of the issues here before you speak. Your word carries a lot of weight.

    Thanks!

  76. Evan Fisher says

    Is it true that Cesium 134 radiation is more toxic than say plutonium and some of the other radioactive materials that can be found in and around nuclear disaster sites?

    If the pacific ocean fish are safe to eat, what do you think accounts for the rash of walrus, sea lion and polar bear deaths currently in the Northwest Pacific?

  77. Nancy says

    Some things are quite wrong in this others fairly correct. There IS radiation from Fukushima being found in Pacific fish off the US west coast. Both some commercial fish testing and the US Dept of Energy have found levels that can be tied to Fukushima radiation in US coast Pacific fish The levels are not high like those being found in certain parts of Japan right now. There is also a considerable plume of radiation crossing the Pacific and expected to reach US shores in 2013-2014 and to continue for some time. The initial estimates of the plume suggested levels would reach those from the 1960’s due to atomic bomb testing. (about 30 bq/m2). But the plant has been leaking ever since and a considerable amount at that. So these estimates may be under estimating this. It will become more important for comprehensive fish testing to take place now and for future years to assure we catch any problem before it becomes severe so people can avoid those types of fish or fishing location.

    The notions mentioned to assure people how safe the fish supply is are all rather incorrect even thought they have been uttered by supposed experts and government officials. The “banana equivalent” is very wrong. This is a good brief explanation about why the banana dose is a bad comparison.
    http://boingboing.net/2010/08/27/bananas-are-radioact.html

    The air plane flight is also a bad comparison when talking about food. Cosmic radiation is quite different than types of artificial radiation. It is also external radiation. This is considerably different than internal radiation you get by eating contaminated food. Internal radiation can do considerably more damage and certain types of internal radiation can stay in your body as long as you live.

    The “safe” comparisons about how much is safe to consume. If this is based on the US INTERVENTION level of around 1000 bq/kg that is not a safe level. That is the level where the US govt will remove foods from the market. It is not a guarantee of safety. There have been a couple of public relations people from the FDA citing this incorrectly. 1000 bq/kg of contaminated food is not safe to be consuming on a regular basis. The US FDA did some food testing in 2011 but it was all either pre-disaster foods or foods that could not be identified as coming from the known contaminated areas (when they tested imports). USDA and NOAA declared there to be no issue in 2011 and refuse to do any testing.
    There is some of the independent US food testing here
    http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=11795
    This is US DOE testing of fish and plant life in Alaska. They did find contaminated fish but due to the early testing after the disaster they assume it to be due to air carried fallout rather than the sea contamination that is happening now.
    http://www.lm.doe.gov/Amchitka/S08833_Biological_Monitoring.pdf

    Until there is some comprehensive (and honest) testing going on I am avoiding Pacific seafood more out of an abundance of caution because we do not know.

  78. Silas says

    From the article linked below, “Deformities are showing up in Japanese butterflies. The once-thriving fishing industry near the plant has been shut down. Dozens of species have been labeled too radioactive to eat.”

    Chris, oh Chris, where are you??? It’s time to come clean with your readers/patients.

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:COBsN4nhqMoJ:abclocal.go.com/kgo/story%3Fsection%3Dnews/state%26id%3D9323780+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=ubuntu

  79. Silas says

    Here is more info coming out regarding Fukushima. From this article, Dr. Shigeru Mita states, “If at all possible, I would like them to move away from East Japan.”

    Full article here:
    http://www.save-children-from-radiation.org/2013/11/11/title-dr-shigeru-mita-addresses-the-need-of-blood-examination-among-children-in-the-kanto-area/

    Chris Kresser, it’s time to redact your original post. Your readers lives are at risk following your advice. Swallow your pride and amend your recommendation about pacific fish. Now is the time.

      • Mary says

        What a bunch of angry little trolls. I’m glad Chris hasn’t taken the bait. He’s stated his opinion–if you disagree, why don’t you start your own blog???

          • Mary says

            I’m skeptical myself and think dissenting opinions are appropriate in the comments section. I just don’t understand why people are attacking him. He stated his opinion and the bases for it. I don’t think anyone reading his blog is under the misapprehension that he is an expert on nuclear radiation. Why the abuse?

            • Silas says

              Mary, its not about being an expert on nuclear radiation. The point of the “abuse” is because there is lots of dis-information and media silence (including suppression of peer reviewed articles/studies) on this topic. People turn to Chris for truth in health. His “opinion” goes against all the articles people are posting on here AND it goes against common sense. Truth is all that matters with a topic as serious as this. Chris is promoting lies by not re-evaluating the situation. Do you trust a liar with your health?

              • Peter says

                Silas. Please consider that Chris has already done a service by brining this issue to everyones’ attention. And as evidenced above, most readers can think for themselves and draw their own conclusions about what’s right for them. I tend to agree with Chris that there’s no smoking gun at this point. However I personally think that’s more due to a lack of data we’d have from adequate testing. So leveling harsh condemnations at Chris isn’t going to change his opinion. Your energy would be better spent advocating for expanded testing of our food supply.

    • Paul Barbara says

      Here are some quotes from your link:
      ‘About 800 people worldwide will get cancer from radiation due to Fukushima in fish eaten to date, according to Georgia Straight calculations. The Straight results relied on a widely used cancer-risk formula developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as well as radiation levels in 33,000 fish tested by the Japanese Fisheries Agency.

      Half the cancers will be fatal. About 500 will be in Japan; 75 will be due to Japanese fish exports to other countries; and 225 will be from fishing in the Pacific by nations other than Japan.

      And that’s likely only a small part of the actual long-term cancer impacts from eating the fish. Two nuclear experts who saw the Straight’s figures said the real cancer toll could be 100 times higher—or 80,000 cancers.

      “The potential numbers could be two orders of magnitude [100 times] higher than your numbers,” Daniel Hirsch, a nuclear-policy lecturer at the University of California at Santa Cruz, said in a phone interview. “Hundreds of cancers are nothing to sneeze at, and it is a fraction of what I suspect the total will be.”

      ‘Closer to home, the B.C. Centre for Disease Control long ago dismissed concerns about Fukushima’s impacts here. “There is no health risk from radiation from the nuclear-power plants in Japan to people in B.C.,” it said in a statement in March 2011.

      “At Fukushima, [the reactor’s] design is great. No human error. Natural disaster,” said Abderrachid Zitouni, the BCCDC’s radiation specialist, explaining the disaster’s cause during a talk to B.C. medical professionals in April 2011. He delivered a PowerPoint presentation that said the accident had involved only a “minor release” of radiation with a “local impact only”.
      (In fact, a Japanese parliamentary commission last year called Fukushima “a profoundly man-made disaster—that could and should have been foreseen and prevented”, blaming “a multitude of errors” and “ignorance and arrogance unforgivable for anyone or any organization that deals with nuclear power”.)

      Says a lot about the British Columbia CDC; and of course, the US CDC is just as bad, covering up the realiity of ‘Morgellons’.

  80. sophiemiaou says

    People should listen to a Harvard world-renowned nuclear expert about the radiation issues… Dr Helen Caldicott knows her stuff. I’d LOVE for her to review this dis-informative article, for the sake of the health of everyone misled by it!!!!!

  81. Mike says

    The viral scare pieces going around about how Fukushima radiation is killing everyone and everything in the Pacific and West Coast are absolute garbage. They’re supported by false claims and bad science and were designed to do nothing but frighten people.

    Pacific Ocean fish are perfectly safe to eat: http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/09/02/are-your-days-of-eating-pacific-ocean-fish-really-over/

    The west coast is NOT being fried by Fukushima raditation: http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/10/28/more-fukushima-scaremongering-debunked/

    • Silas says

      Wow. You’re just as brain-washed as Chris. The articles you posted really made me feel all better about the tons of radiation leaking into the ocean. {sarcasm} The only truth to your post is that the info IS going around the internet. Where is the government addressing this issue? Oh that’s right, they’re doing what they always do — deceive. Seems like you’re right there with them. Good try Mike.

    • Peter says

      I’m thinking the Mike who posted these links is the same Mike who authored the blog posts. At first the arguments seemed reassuring, but then I read the comments section where the author gets his hat handed to him by some actual physicists, (esp. Mike Wofsey). Final verdict: less reassured than before reading the article.

      • says

        Thanks for mentioning Mike Wofsey. That was a very important thread to read on his comments. Hopefully others will also read it. Wish that kind of discussion could be duplicated here. It needs high readership.

    • Paul says

      There is one thing to be said about eating Pacific seafood: you are likely in the short term to save money on electricity, as you’ll be glowing so much you won’t need light bulbs.

  82. Lynn says

    Well … I was just making out a grocery list, and now I’m not sure what to do … I love tuna (which I’ve only just stopped eating … still have 2 cans in the cupboard and not sure what to do with them … check them at 2 a.m. to see if they are glowing?) and I also like cod and halibut and, occasionally, salmon. Chris, I appreciate your column and I’m going to subscribe, but I have to admit, I am increasingly worried about the after-effects of Fukushima. I’m also very skeptical about the information we’re getting, precisely because Tepco and the Japanese government are (as far as I know) lying to their own people about it. If that is so, I don’t think they would hesitate for a moment to lie to the rest of the world. Plus after 2.5 years of dicking around like the Three Stooges, they are still refusing to call for international help. And no, I don’t trust politicians from other governments (including my own — Stephen Harper is known to be trying to muzzle scientists except where their findings promote business) to be any more forthcoming than Japan’s politicians.
    So I guess I’m wondering: does anybody have any ideas of ANY fish that is likely to be safe to eat?

    • Julie says

      Lynn, maybe fish from the southern portion of the Atlantic or aquaponics. My sister is a self described pescatarian, and she won’t touch ANY fish now unless its from the above.

  83. dr fungus says

    dear all yes everybody lies if there is some gain but the truth is this planet was so polluted before first human come on stage, our problem is knowledge and if we apply all our wisdom whats good whats bad for us we practicaly should not be here any more wiped out by pollution ,but irony is there is more of us then ever before so final finding are pollution must be good for us otherwise they would not chemtrails us.open another can of tuna and have some chicken feed widh arsenic some pork with traces of banned chemicals and glass of good red vine grown on battlefields where phosphorus rich soils from tens of thousands fallen soldiers gives best vine CHEERS

  84. Paul Barbara says

    ‘Radioactive Rainwater Overwhelms Fukishima Nuclear Plant':
    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31 &Itemid=74&jumival=10885

    And there is another typhoon on the way, expected to hit Japan.

    Regarding the EPA, remember their 9/11 advice: ‘The air is safe to breathe’?
    ‘Rep. Jerry Nadler, a Manhattan Democrat, called for a Justice Department investigation. “That the White House instructed EPA officials to downplay the health impact of the World Trade Center contaminants due to ‘competing considerations’ at the expense of the health and lives of New York City residents is an abomination,” he said in a news release (‘Common Dreams’).
    And the FDA re Aspartame, and GMO’s (see ‘The Monsanto Files
    The Ecologist September October 1998 (This edition was trashed by the printing office after threats from Monsanto) {footnotes are missing}
    Revolving Doors: Monsanto and the Regulators
    by Jennifer Ferrara
    Traditionally, key figures at the FDA in particular have either held important positions at Monsanto, or are destined to do so in the future. Is it surprising therefore that Monsanto gets clearance for its often dangerous products?..
    http://www.psrast.org/ecologmons.htm
    ‘The EPA is closing ranks with the nuclear power industry ….

    Indeed, some government scientists and media shills are now “reexamining” old studies that show that radioactive substances like plutonium cause cancer to argue that they help prevent cancer.
    It is not just bubbleheads like Ann Coulter saying this. Government scientists from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratories and pro-nuclear hacks like Lawrence Solomon are saying this. [Update.]
    In other words, this is a concerted propaganda campaign to cover up the severity of a major nuclear accident by raising acceptable levels of radiation and saying that a little radiation is good for us..’
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/government-reacts-to-fukushima-radiation-crisis-by-raising-acceptable-radiation-standards-instead-of-fixing-anything.html

    The Nuclear Industry is doing it’s best to understate the damage done by the Fukushima incident. What has happened to the ‘precautionary principal’? Now, government ‘Protection Agencies’ are in the pockets of the polluters and poisoners, as are the Courts (Monsanto vs Farmer http://thegranddisillusion.wordpress.com/monsanto-vs-farmer/ ).

  85. Jim says

    Thing is, there has been NO response BY OUR POLITICIANS.

    Politicians will say ‘Someone should have told me there was a problem’

    See, it is all YOUR fault.

    Wake up folks.

  86. Paul Barbara says

    Radioactivity level spikes 6,500 times at Fukushima well
    (Published time: October 18, 2013 02:08; Edited time: October 19, 2013 19:41):
    RT
    ‘Radioactivity levels in a well near a storage tank at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan have risen immensely on Thursday, the plant’s operator has reported.
    Officials of the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) said on Friday they detected 400,000 becquerels per liter of beta ray-emitting radioactive substances – including strontium – at the site, a level 6,500 times higher than readings taken on Wednesday, NHK World reported.
    The storage tank leaked over 300 tons of contaminated water in August, some of which is believed to have found its way into the sea through a ditch.
    The well in question is about 10 meters from the tank and was dug to gauge leakage.

    TEPCO said the findings show that radioactive substances like strontium have reached the groundwater. High levels of tritium, which transfers much easier in water than strontium, had already been detected…’

    ‘“Facilities themselves, the four reactors that are the most damaged had a series of explosions internally, so it would not take an earthquake as big as the one they had two and a half years ago to potentially do a lot of serious damage there.”
    He added that the health risks are great and continue to increase every year. “Somewhere between 100,000 to 1,000,000 [people] will over the next thirty years get cancer from this accident…1,000 additional cancers a year from eating fish from the Pacific.”

    And things are only going to get worse!

  87. Sean says

    A friend of mine sent me this in response to this article: http://fairewinds.org/media/in-the-news/fish-data-belie-japans-claims-fukushima

    His argument is summarized here:
    “The problem with radiation is that there are different kinds (alpha, beta and gamma) and they do different things to different parts of the body (some forms can pass through 10-100 cell layers since the particles are large and destructive so they are much worse if inhaled or ingested because they disrupt epithelial cell DNA…some are small in particle size and can pass through > 1000 cell layers and are not as destructive per particle but can be really bad over long exposures). Problem is radiation is measured in bequerels, sieverts, RADs, etc. and many of these studies don’t make a distinction between them, they just reference the ‘acceptable’ level determined by the EPA.”

    I’m interested if anyone out there has any more thoughts on this.

    • Altair-IV says

      You are mixing the units of incompatible quantities. It’s like saying the problem with energy is that it is measured in centimeters, kilograms, and seconds.

      Becquerels is a unit of radioactivity that tells you how fast or how often the atoms of a radioactive material are decaying. A Bq is actually an inverse second.

      A rad is the old unit for “dose” which is how much energy is being deposited by the radiation per unit mass. The new SI unit for this quantity is the “gray”.

      Sievert is the new SI unit for “dose equivalent” which is how much biological damage is done by the absorbed energy.

      Those are 3 incompatible quantities that can NOT be converted into each other; just as in my example above with centimeters, kilograms, and seconds being units of length, mass, and time, respectively.

      Legitimate scientists know what these units are and when to use them for the proper quantities. There are a bunch of pseudo-scientists and fear mongers that get these units confused; and it is best just to ignore them.

  88. Peter says

    Dam you just pasted the exact argument the nuclear industry who creates nuclear bombs and factories write. Well done for supporting them.

    “A typical restaurant-sized portion of Pacific bluefin tuna (200 grams, or 7 ounces) contains about 5% of the radiation you would get from eating one uncontaminated banana and absorbing it’s naturally occurring radiation. All foods on the planet contain radiation. Like every other toxin, it’s the dose of radiation (rather than its simple presence) that determines whether it’s toxic to humans.”

    Go and watch chernobyl heart and see what happens to the million of children who ate food containing radioactive iodine 131 and see what kind of thyroid problems and cancers millions of children had.
    Then see the millions of kids eating bananas who get very high doses of radioactive potassium and see if they are getting sick. And see if this nonsense nuclear industry quote holds any merit.

    Comparing radioactive iodine 131 and cesium 137 to naturally occurring potassium radiation our bodies have adapted to over 1000s of years is perhaps the dumbest quote of the century.
    Its like comparing a glass of water or milk which is a liquid to a a glass of round up weed killer which is also a liquid saying they are the same.
    A 2 year old kid thinks all liquids are the same but by the time they turn 5 or even earlier most finally have worked out the simple basic concept that all liquids are not the same and comparing them and saying they are all safe to drink for breakfast is beyond idiotic.

    Radiation comes in very different forms. Some are highly toxic some are safe and some are healthy.
    Same goes for liquids. Some are safe like juices, milk and water. Some are highly toxic like sulfuric acid, paint stripper, weed killers etc.

    The real killer of your nuclear industry sponsored quote is this part.

    “Even at very high intakes (3/4 of a pound of contaminated bluefin tuna a day) for an entire year, you’d still receive only 12% of the dose of radiation you’re exposed to during one cross-country flight from LA to New York.”

    Now not only is the nuclear industry comparing different forms of radiation they are comparing totally different exposure methods.

    In the first example they are comparing natural safe “ionizing” radiation albeit at higher than normal levels we as humans have been exposed to for 1000s of years and adapted to.

    And compared to toxic nuclear waste like cs137 which is created from the fission of highly toxic plutonium and uranium as an even more toxic by product from nuclear factories and nuclear weapons.

    And the ultimate (wait it gets better) they are comparing just being exposed to it, to actually eating it straight into your stomach where it gets absorbed into all your organs and can lodge forever in your bones and tissues till you die causing major havoc and cancers as you get older.

    So its like comparing now a toxic chemical like zero weed killer in the same room as you so maybe you smelt some and got slight exposure.

    To actually drinking the entire glass of weed killer. Comparing drinking weed killer and being exposed in the same room is just insane. But the comparison didn’t even do that. It compared a safe liquid like milk being in a cup in the same room and you just looking at it. So maybe you inhaled some of the milk. To actually drinking a totally different liquid like round up weed killer.

    So the nuclear industry wants us to believe that drinking a glass of zero weed killer is exactly the same as not drinking but smelling a glass of milk.

    Because they are both “liquids” nuclear industry says all liquids are the same.

    Even a 5 year old kid knows not all liquids are the same.

    Yet the nuclear industry tries to insult our intelligence by saying all “radiation” is exactly the same.

    • Peter says

      Peter,

      I recently saw that Cesium has a biological half-life of around 80 days, which of course is shorter than it’s radiological half-life. – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_half-life

      So at least when we’re talking about Cesium the effects seem to be somewhat mitigated. However, I agree it doesn’t make much sense to compare internal exposure to external, and 80 days will only rid you of half the ingested Cesium (approx). Now Plutonium also has a biological half-life, but not short enough to make any difference in a human life span.

      “Plutonium in bone has a biological half-life of about 100 years.”

      So I don’t think we should be jumping to any any safe/unsafe conclusions until they start testing for PU and Strontium 90.

      • Peter says

        Radioactive Cesium-137 has a half life of over 30 years in your body. You looked up the wrong isotope.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137

        On 24 May 2012, TEPCO released their estimate of radiation releases due to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster. An estimated 538.1 PBq of iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137 was released.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

        By the way you might be wondering what does 538.1 PBq mean?
        It means 538 Million Billion becquerels of highly toxic and cancerous radiation has been released into the ocean and atmosphere.

        This highly toxic radioactive plume of radiation has been slowly drifting from the Japan coast to the USA coast and will contaminate everything in sight. All fish and seaweed on the west coast of america and canada will be contaminated from 2014 and onwards.

        http://www.nbcnews.com/science/fukushimas-radioactive-ocean-plume-due-reach-us-waters-2014-8C11050755

        • Peter says

          You’re confusing biological half-life, with radioactive (or physical) half-life. In the case of Cesium 137, the biological half-life will be dominant when calculating the effective half-life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_half-life

          Radioactive HL = 1,100 (30 yrs)
          Biological HL = 70
          Effective HL = (1,100 x 70) / (1,100 + 70)

          = 69.557

          Scroll further down in the Wikipedia link you posted on Caesium-137, and you will see:
          “The biological half-life of caesium is rather short at about 70 days.”

          Keep in mind however, this might still equate to a really long time if you either ingest large quantities or on a regular basis, since only half will get excreted every 70 days or so.

      • John says

        Peter,
        The problem with cesium in humans is that we only eliminate 80% of the cesium they take in. cesium 137 has a half life of about 30 years and it has an affinity for muscles like the heart. Google “Chernobyl Heart” to see what I’m talking about.

    • Julie says

      And I would like to point out that the “dose makes the poison” is not necessarily true. For so many kids with autism like mine, it’s the body chemistry plus toxin that equals the poison, not the dose. Our kids have mitochondrial issues, genetic mutations, and chromosomal disabilities (again, like mine with Down Syndrome) that cause them to not be able to properly methylate. So if a typical and genetically/mitochondrially normal child and an autistic child both go under anesthesia for a surgery, the typical child will come out fine. The autistic child will most likely undergo regression. It’s the same dose of anesthesia, but the outcomes are completely different. One child might be fine eating something as simple as an apple with a high salicylate content, but the other with get angry and red faced. To make a blanket statement and say that the benefits of fish outweighs the risks right now might very definitely depend upon who you are. Now I have heard that the safest fish to eat is in the Southern Hemisphere Atlantic. Even the waters near Sellafield are a dumping ground for nuclear waste. S best bet, Southern Hemisphere Atlantic or aquaponics.

    • Altair-IV says

      The “nuclear industry” which usually means the industry that runs commercial power plants does NOT make nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are made NOT by a “nuclear industry”; but by the US Government – specifically the Department of Energy.

      The Department of Energy contracts for the staff to run its weapons production facilities; but even here it is not “industry”. For example, every person that designed a nuclear weapon in the US stockpile received his/her paycheck from the same entity; namely the University of California which runs the nuclear weapons design labs.

      • Paul Barbara says

        Very true, Altair. But who supplies the raw material? The US or any other govrnment would hardly let a private company produce its own nukes, now would they? Has anyone suggested they would?
        But the Western world was fed a whole pack of lies about nuclear power, how it was going to be ‘too cheap to meter’ (bit like Obama going to close Gitmo, or all the host of other ‘Election Promises’ that got broken as soon as his butt was safely installed in the White House).
        The reason nuclear power was pushed, was to fuel the bomb program (Britain was in such a hurry to impress the US with how far they had progressed, that they decreased the safety coating around fuel rods in order to provide enough bomb-grade material to explode a massive atom bomb, with the hope of fooling the Americans into thinking they had built a Hydrogen bomb.
        Result was, the nuclear reactor fire at Sellafield in the UK in 1957 (you will be unlikely to find the true cause of this from an internet ‘search’, but there was a BBC program some years back which gave the real reason, which I stated above). And the trick didn’t work; the Americans were not fooled, and knew that Britain’s test was just a very large atom bomb.
        Seen any ‘too cheap to meter’ electricity around? Please let me know if you do find some!

        • Altair-IV says

          That’s BALONEY!! First, the statement about “too cheap to meter” was NOT said by the nuclear industry; but a Government official, AEC Chairman Lewis Strauss, and he wasn’t talking about commercial nuclear reactors like we have now. Strauss was referring to future FUSION reactors.

          You are 100% WRONG about nuclear power reactors being pushed as a source of bomb materials. Sorry to tell you, but 100% of the nuclear weapons material in our nuclear weapons was produced at the US Government-owned Hanford site is Washington State, and the Savannah River site in South Carolina. The USA would be in VIOLATION of Treaty if it used fissile material from power reactors.

          Nuclear power reactors were designed / promoted for one purpose; to make electricity cleanly.

          • Altair-IV says

            About the “too cheap to meter” quote; see:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Strauss

            “In 1954, Strauss predicted that atomic power would make electricity “too cheap to meter.” He was referring to Project Sherwood, a secret program to develop power from hydrogen fusion, not uranium fission reactors as is commonly believed”

            Strauss made the “too cheap to meter” comment in 1954; and the first power reactor, Shippingport, was built in 1957; 3 years later.

        • Altair-IV says

          You are also 100% WRONG about the cause of the fire in Windscale Pile #1 at Sellafield. The Windscale reactors were graphite moderated reactors. As you operate a graphite moderated reactor, the graphite moderator stores “Wigner energy” as fast neutrons knock carbon atoms out of their proper sites in the crystal lattice of graphite.

          Wigner energy can be be spontaneously released unexpectedly. Therefore, proper operating procedure for a low-temperature graphite reactor is to periodically “anneal” the graphite by heating it to high temperature by running the reactor with reduced cooling.

          It was during one of these annealing operations that the reactor operators made an error that caused the fire.

          There is so much fabricated nonsense that some make up to discredit nuclear power, that one should really check their information with a reputable source, instead of spewing nonsense and claptrap.

          • Altair-IV says

            Contrary to Paul’s contention that the Windscale Piles were “commercial”; the reader can see that the Windscale reactors were purely for military; and NOT commercial purposes. See page 2 of the following:

            http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/27/3/E02/pdf/jrp7_3_e02.pdf

            “The reactor core was cooled by blowing a large volume of environmental air through the channels and out a 120m high chimney – in contrast to power reactors, in the Piles the heat generated by nuclear fission was purely incidental to the creation of plutonium for military use.”

            Q.E.D.

        • Altair-IV says

          Actually, commercial nuclear power has nothing to do with nuclear weapons; 100% of the nuclear weapons material was created at the US Government-owned facilities at Hanford in Washington State, and Savannah River in South Carolina.

          Absolutely NONE of the material in US nuclear weapons came from commercial power reactors. In fact, if the USA used fissile material from power reactors in weapons; then the USA would be in VIOLATION of Treaty.

          Nuclear power reactors were designed / pushed for one purpose; to make electricity.

          • Paul Barbara says

            There may well be agreements in place NOW that prohibit use of civil nuclear power stations to provide nuclear material for weapons; that most certainly WAS NOT THE CASE previously:
            ‘The Windscale fire of 10 October 1957 was the worst nuclear accident in Great Britain’s history, ranked in severity at level 5 on the 7-point International Nuclear Event Scale.[1] The two piles had been hurriedly built as part of the British atomic bomb project.[2] Windscale Pile No. 1 was operational in October 1950 followed by Pile No. 2 in June 1951…’ (from Wiki article ‘Windscale Fire’).
            I am not paid to post, nor do I have assistants to chase up articles; I have other things to do, so I will answer some of your other posts here, rather than scrolling through a mountain of posts.
            Re the Windscale Fire in 1957, I will reiterate my position, that a BBC documentary, some years back, had two whistleblowers who worked there in quite high positions (I don’t remember their exact jobs), and they explained that the metal casing around the uranium, which had cooling fins, was shaved, to increase the amount of bomb material they could produce in a short time, because there was a deadline to produce a very large amount of bomb materiial for a massive bomb that was intended to fool the Americans into thinking it was an H-bomb.
            I stated that the trick had not worked, and that the Americans knew it was just a large atom bomb.
            It matters not a lot that it may not have had a snowball in hells chance of fooling them; that was the reason it was done, according to the whistleblowers.
            They also said the fire was out of control, when the guy in charge ordered the air blowers to be turned full on; this freaked everyone out, because it was thought that would fan the firre and increase it’s severity, and the guy himself knew he was taken a chance – the tactic worked, and the fire was brought under control.
            As for your disinformation about the safety of microwave communications and electric power lines, I will deal with that another time; please remind me if there is anything else which I have not responded to, and I shall attempt to do so.
            One more thing; read the following article by a guy that crossed the Pacific, and saw and heard hardly any creatures at all after Fukushima:
            ‘The ocean is broken’ Newcastle Herald http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1848433/the-ocean-is-broken/
            Oh yes, re the ‘Too cheap to meter’ quote, the Wiki article you refer to also backs up my argument, that it was used to ‘sell’ the public on nuclear power stations; it states that ‘It is often (understandably but erroneously) assumed that Strauss’ prediction was a reference to conventional uranium fission nuclear reactors…’, and also ‘Strauss gave no public hint at the time that he was referring to fusion reactors because of the classified nature of Project Sherwood and the press naturally took his prediction regarding cheap electricity to apply to conventional fission reactors. .’ So were you chancing that I or others would not check your source? Did you not notice these quotes, which bolster my conttentions rather than your attempted rebuttal?

            • Altair-IV says

              WRONG AGAIN!! The Treaty that prohibits civilian reactors from making weapons material dates to the 1960s.

              Counter to your claim, the information about power lines and microwaves comes from SCIENTISTS. Numerous scientific organizations like the Health Physics Society, and the American Physical Society have debunked the hysteria over dangers of power lines.

              http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/95_2.cfm

              http://hps.org/hpspublications/articles/powerlines.html

              WRONG AGAIN about the comments of Strauss. In public testimony, the AEC made public the cost estimates for fission power:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter

              ” However, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission itself in testimony to the U.S. Congress only months before lowered the expectations for fission power, projecting only that the costs of reactors could be brought down to about the same as from conventional sources”

              Contary to your ill-founded claim; the AEC submitted testimony to Congress about the same time that fission reactor power would be on par with costs from conventional power, and NOT “too cheap to meter”

              It’s there in the Congressional record if you’d like to check a reliable source instead of fabrications.

              • Paul Barbara says

                No, ‘fraid YOU are WRONG AGAIN. The Nuclear plants had been pushed well before the 1960’s, when you say these treaties came about, and when the PTB wanted to sell Nuclear Power to the people under false pretences.
                Also, if you READ the Wiki article you originally used to back up the Strauss info, you will find it supports MY argument, that ‘Electricity too cheap to meter’ WAS used to sell the idea; as you should be aware, Governments and MSM are not too fussy about lying or telling ‘half truths’ to sell whatever it is they are pushing.
                You crack on about the ‘Scientific Community'; you don’t appear to have checked out Barrie Trower’s articles and videos; he is a scientist, fuuly qualified to engage in University Research Projects, and was involved in miicrowave warfare research in the British Military; he also debriefed foreign spies re microwave activities in their countries.
                You seem to be so blinkered, supporting the Government even when there is clear evidence that they are lying about all kinds of dangers, that I suspect you are working for them.

                • Altair-IV says

                  OBJECTION – poster is relying on information not in evidence. I am NOT “working / lying on behalf of the Government. I’m a retired Professor of Physics.

              • Altair-IV says

                ZERO evidence of false pretense sale. The AEC stated nuclear power would be on par with conventional sources.

                Trower is but ONE scientist whose opinions are at odds with the VAST MAJORITY of scientists as expressed by the societies.

                Contrary to your ill-founded and unsubstantiated, and reprehensible contentions; I have ZERO interest in lying for the Government. I’m a retired Professor of Physics.

                • Paul Barbara says

                  You seem to think it is perfectly to say what you like against me (‘There is so much fabricated nonsense that some make up to discredit nuclear power, that one should really check their information with a reputable source, instead of spewing nonsense and claptrap.’, yet get I your high horse when I write thet I ‘suspect’ you are working for the Government of Industry.
                  Your blinkered viision re handling my posts (you ignore those that you cannot answer with a ‘Wiki’ or ‘Report’ (with, of course, no evidence it was not an Industry stitch-up, like Monsanto and the Tobacco industry were so good at ‘arranging’).
                  Have you actually read/watched Barrie Trower’s reports/videos? As a ‘retired’ Physiicist, I would have thought you would relish the idea of ridiculing his work, from a strong standpoint of having actually examined it first.

                • Paul Barbara says

                  Sorry for the typos
                  in my response below; it is difficult typing in the truncated space that for some reason pops up every now and again on this thread.

              • Paul Barbara says

                I posted this previously, but you seem to have missed it:
                ‘The Windscale fire of 10 October 1957 was the worst nuclear accident in Great Britain’s history, ranked in severity at level 5 on the 7-point International Nuclear Event Scale.[1] The two piles had been hurriedly built as part of the British atomic bomb project.[2] Windscale Pile No. 1 was operational in October 1950 followed by Pile No. 2 in June 1951…’ (from Wiki article ‘Windscale Fire’).
                The two piles had been hurriedly built as part of the British atomic bomb project.[2] What part of ‘ The two piles had been hurriedly built as part of the British atomic bomb project.[2] ‘ don’t you understand?
                You may be right about the American reactors, but as you see, it was no secret the UK was using civil power generators to provide bomb material.

                • Altair-IV says

                  Windscale were BOTH military production reactors.

                  GEESH – both EXHAUSTED all their heat up those stacks. The Windscale reactors didn’t make electricity; so they were NOT commercial.

                • Paul Barbara says

                  @ Altair:
                  I was wrong about Windscale; it was a Military plant; and I was wrong about turning on the air blowers; it was water he turned on (that is my memory playing up; I watched the BBC program about 20/25 years ago.
                  I have no problem admitting when I am wrong; pity you don’t do the same!
                  I had to ‘reply’ to my post, because your relative one did not have a ‘reply’ button.

            • Altair-IV says

              Both the prestigious American Physical Society and the Health Physics Society dispute the claims of this Barrie Trower.

              A little research shows that this person is not a scientist but some high school teacher. See:

              http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/08/24/i-bet-mr-trower-has-a-delightful-accent/

              “You will notice what’s very specifically not been said here, which is that Mr. Trower teaches physics at a university. Lest anyone should carelessly arrive at this impression, it ought to be said that what the Post calls “Dartmoor College” is South Dartmoor Community College, a state comprehensive school for children aged 11-18.”

              As the first commentor stated; this guy is a “quackpot”.

              I don’t reveiw the work of charlatans.

              • Paul Barbara says

                Charlatan? You’re not fit to tie his shoelaces!
                This man is brave enough to go around the world, unpaid and at considerable personal risk, to spread the Truth, unlike you, who sit on your backside and spew the nonsense you claim others spew.
                I have seen that Canadian article before, which says ‘sweet F.A.’. His talk inspired local people to get Wi-Fi removed from their children’s classrooms. But the Telecom Industry has a lot of clout, and it soon got a tame Presstitute to slag him off, and you could not see the flaws in his effort! He said nought, just slagged the guy off!
                Barrie never claimed to teach in a University, but has two degrees, and is qualified to conduct University Research Programs. He claims to be an expert in microwave warfare; I believe him; where is your EVIDENCE he is a ‘Charlatan’ or ‘Quackpot’?
                I just hope some commenters actually visit his articles/videos,; they may well learn enough to be able to protect their children/grandchildren from genetic damage, cancer or other health issues.
                I have posted enough links to dangers which you have ignored.
                As Einstein said, ‘To condemn without examining the evidence is the height of ignorance’. I make him right!

                • Altair-IV says

                  I HAVE examined the evidence – but evidence from good respected professional scientists; and not some high school teacher.

            • Altair-IV says

              Paul claims above; “…they explained that the metal casing around the uranium, which had cooling fins, was shaved, to increase the amount of bomb material they could produce in a short time, …”

              The above is INCORRECT. The casing was shaved in order to allow the Windscale reactors to do something that they were never originally designed to do – make tritium for thermonuclear weapons.

              This is well covered in the Wikipedia article on the Windscale fire:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

              “Britain did not have any facility to produce tritium and decided to use the Windscale piles. ..Higher neutron fluxes were needed for this than for producing plutonium and it was decided to reduce the size of the cooling fins …thereby reducing the absorption of neutrons by this aluminium. By pushing the first-generation design of the Windscale facility beyond its intended limits, tritium could be produced at the cost of a reduced safety factor.”

              This was NOT a “nuclear industry” cutting corners. The Windscale reactors were purely for military puroses; and the UK military enterprise was attempting to retrofit these reactors to do something that they were never originally intended for. That’s where they got into trouble; along with the fact that they were dealing with “Wigner energy” that they didn’t understand very well.

        • Altair-IV says

          Actually, there really would be no way that one could use atomic bombs to fool the USA into thinking Britain had hydrogen bombs. The very first hydrogen bombs like Ivy Mike had an explosive yield of 10 Megatons. The first hydrogen bomb had an explosive yield that was 500X as great as the first atomic bomb. That 10 Megatons is also greater than the maxiumum possible yield of an atomic bomb. So there’s no way to make an atomic bomb that was so big that it could be taken as one of the hydrogen bombs of the day. The laws of Physics just don’t allow that.

        • Altair-IV says

          Paul states, “The reason nuclear power was pushed, was to fuel the bomb program”

          This is 100% WRONG!!! The US Government had ZERO need for commercial power reactors for the weapons program.

          The US Government had ALL the specially-designed “production reactors” which are designed to produce weapons materials; that the US Government needed at the Government-owned Hanford site in Washington State and Savannah River site in South Carolina.

          In actuality, 100% of the special nuclear materials in current and past US nuclear weapons came from the production reactors at Hanford and Savannah River.

          Absolutely NONE of the fissile material came from commercial power reactors.

          The anti-nukes love to tell this LIE in order to discredit commercial nuclear power by linking it to nuclear weapons. However, a LIE is a LIE is a LIE. The US Government had ZERO need for commercial power reactors; it had all the production reactor capacity it needed at Hanford and Savannah River.

  89. Paul Barbara says

    The National Academy of Sciences evaluation you referred to above was Edited by David M. Karl, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, and approved April 18, 2013 (received for review December 14, 2012).
    However, things have got a lot worse since 2012, when the report was submitted, and I believe the samples were collected long before that.
    Here is a more recent article, which does not go into scientific detail about heallth consequences of eating contaminated fish, but when you remember, apart from this recent increase, the Fukushima plants have been leaking continuosly into the sea (and the air), and the Japanese Government and TEPCO have been underplaying the real extent of the leaks (and Obama ordered US air level tests along the US Pacific coast to stop collecting data; and child leukemias have shot up):
    Fukushima Radioactive Levels Surge 90-Fold in Three Days
    Fallout worsens again as industry pushes for more nuclear plants
    – Jacob Chamberlain, staff writer
    http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/07/09-3
    Perhaps it’s time the National Academy of Sciences did another series of tests?
    Given this new information (and there have likely been many other ‘spikes’ that have gone unregistered, or unreported), would you feed young children and pregnant women these suspect fish, even if you would risk eating them yourself?

  90. Joseph Mathes says

    “So far no one has presented peer-reviewed evidence that the levels of cesium-134 and cesium-137 in Pacific seafood are harmful.”

    The problem I have is that there is no safe level of radiation. Studies have proved that with any increase of radiation there is a correlated increase of cancer. Radiation limits around the world are not limits that are safe. They are just limits that are considered ‘normal.’ The question now is ‘How much of a risk is it?” I have cut way back on seafood because of this and also milk due to bioaccumulation. Considering we are the only mammals that drink milk beyond infancy and more so we even drink other mammals milk.

  91. Mary says

    I eat only canned fish (Alaskan Sockeye with bones and skin) because fresh wild fish is prohibitively expensive. I usually eat two 7-ounce cans per week (over four meals). The brand I buy does not contain BPA, but I know that is not a gaurantee that it is free of other chemicals. My question is do you think this is a healthy way to meet your recommendation of one pound of cold water, fatty fish per week? I have tried other canned fish, like sardines, but I find them pretty disgusting.

  92. Chris Kresser says

    As of January of this year, there was no detectable cesium in Pacific Northwest salmon according to UC Berkeley’s Nuclear Engineering Air Monitor Site: http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/UCBAirSampling/FoodCHain#salmon

    They have tested soil and other foods since the Fukushima incident.
    http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/UCBAirSampling/FoodCHain

    Scientists at Lawrence Berkeley Labs have recently estimated that the total number of long-term radiation-induced cancers resulting from Fukushima meltdowns—including exposure to radiation directly after the tsunami—at 60.

    The article emphasizes the seriousness of the ongoing leakage, but reiterates what I’ve written here: so far, there’s no credible evidence that potential harm from eating seafood caught in the Pacific outweighs the significant benefits. That’s the question at hand.

    • says

      Salmon is a poor representation of Pacific contamination. Some salmon species never even touch the ocean. There is no indication of the type of salmon assayed other than “local grocery store”. Also, most of the other foods they assayed were back in 2011. There has been an enormous amount of additional radiation spilled since then. Furthermore, the spill is going on at enormous levels continuously and so the Pacific is getting more and more contaminated.

      There are many scientific estimates on the number of deaths. The reality is no one knows. Remember President Obama’s scientific advisors (presumably the “top scientists in the country”) told us that the radiation from Fukushima was too far away and couldn’t affect us here. This was despite the fact that they admitted they didn’t know the magnitude of the blast or the altitude it reached. Well they were very wrong. Of course, all of our BS meters should have gone off on that one.

      Even if we look retrospectively at data years from now, how do you prove the deaths are from Fukushima? It’s almost like the vaccine debate. If vaccine damage can occur up to 3 months after the shot (such as was shown in one study under controlled conditions) then how can we practically gauge a cause and effect? It’s really tough.

      In the end, my analysis is that there is an enormous amount of ongoing leakage and by the time they prove there is a problem it would have been too late for most of us eating seafood. So for me it’s not worth the risk and that is how I advise my patients.

    • Peter says

      The way I see it is even if contamination levels not a problem for us yet, there’s a very high probability it will be in the coming months/years. And I don’t think we should be happy with just testing fish from the super market a few times a year, or relying on a few customs inspectors with geiger counters to catch a problem before it’s too late. The nature of this beast requires we be out ahead and not just relying on lagging indicators.

      Most people don’t realize that this threat is not the same as more transient contaminations we hear on the news (BP oil spill, E-coli outbreaks, etc.). I agree we should not over react, but I think it warrants more concerned then BPAs, Pesticides and PUFAs combined! This threat is not going away in our lifetime, so I think it’s better to do whatever we can to start make everyone more educated and vigilant so we can begin to advocate for more proactive testing. Otherwise it’s all just wild speculation.

  93. Sue says

    I have an unrelated question. Regarding arsenic in rice: i believe this to be true, however, how is it that many cultures thrive with rice as a staple in their diet? What about brown rice syrup and brown rice flour that is in found in so many “healthy” snacks, etc. I have heard that brown rice is far worse than white rice (more tainted). Please advise. Thank you.

  94. John says

    Excellent article, Chris. When I first heard about people being alarmed at the level of radiation in pacific caught fish, I immediately thought of both banana radiation and radiation exposure due to flying. While I would agree that the we may have evolved to deal with radiation from bananas, I would think that anyone who raises the alarm over fish radiation would have to be at least equally concerned with radiation exposure from flying. After all, we certainly didn’t evolve to deal with radiation exposure from the upper atmosphere. Yet no one that I’ve seen who advises to avoid seafood “just to be safe” mentions that you should also avoid flying, you know, “just to be safe.”

  95. Erica Etelson says

    Bears mentioning that if we all keep consuming fish (contaminated or not) at the current rate, there soon won’t be any left. So if you’re concerned about radiation — or concerned about fishery collapse, minimize your fish intake.

  96. Susan says

    My husband is a Nuclear Engineer (and a hard-working Paleo cook). I was dreading yet another anti-nuclear article. THANK YOU for spreading factual knowledge and truth.

  97. says

    Good points in both directions. Thanks for keeping up on the research and sharing your viewpoint. No doubt that it has the potential to all change when the long term studies are performed, causing everything to be turned upside down.

    Everyone’s free to make their own food choices. I personally limit intake from the Pacific, but it’s good to know what the research is showing thus far.

    While not a peer reviewed article, here’s a good take on the issue (from last year):

    http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/10/fukushima-fish-still-hot.html

  98. ryan says

    I’m putting on my tinfoil hat and never coming out of my house. Not sure how some of you take the huge risk of driving on a daily basis that surely has higher death rates than consuming fish.

    • says

      Hi Ryan,

      Yes, driving has incredibly high risks to it. The difference is in risks that are easily modified versus those that are not. Tin hat might protect your brain against RF’s … maybe you’re onto something there : )

  99. says

    The first finding by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences caught my eye.Everything we eat has a dose of radiation…I don’t think many folks are aware of this fact.Very interesting

  100. says

    Thank you so much for writing this article. I have received so many questions from readers regarding this and have also read many fear-mongering articles telling people to avoid ALL seafood. While I am very selective on where I purchase my seafood, I find that I am eating more now than I ever was. I have no plans of stopping! I also try to incorporate some seaweed too as I remember. I appreciate you putting this article out — I am sharing with my readers. Keep up the great work! :)

  101. Sharon says

    I can’t say I have ever eaten much fish. Not really a favorite of mine. I do try to incorporate some seaweed from the Maine coast but usually forget to do even that. I am 73 years old. Seems like I am, for the most part, in good health but evidently since I haven’t eaten fish over my lifetime, I could go at any minute. Yikes!

  102. Mike L says

    I don’t have time to read through all the replies, so I may
    be repeating something that’s already been said but, the article I read stated that, the acceptable levels threshold has been raised by a huge amount so as not to alarm people.

    • Chris Kresser says

      The levels of cesium in Pacific seafood after Fukushima are still orders of magnitude lower than the prior, more stringent limit. So the concern about the new, higher limit is irrelevant.

  103. Mark Koetluk says

    Dear Chris,
    I agree this is a good subject for discussion. I recently read prof Keith Scott Mumby’s blog on Fukushima and I believe it is a good thing to continously monitor the health of the fish in the pacific. The thing with larger fish is that they are higher up in the food chain. Therefore, toxins including radioactive isotopes become more concentrated in their tissues. Keith quotes some report wherein the Indian elders from Alaska stated that the sockeye salmon had disappeared and this was the first time ever. I’m not sure what to make of this. It may just as well have no relationship to Fukushima leaks. Furthermore, I do believe that it is a mistake to think that Japan is far away from the coastal waters of the American continent; One should consider the ocean currents. I’m not sure but isn’t there one which flows from Japan to Alaska which then flows southwards towards California?

    Kind regards
    Mark

  104. Jay says

    Are there credible reports about radiation in Japanese tea? I know that many tea exporters in Japan stopped shipping tea from Shizuoka as tea from there had shown increased radiation. Now, though, the more resent test have indicated that tea from Shizuoka is safe and exports have resumed. There is some debate about the radioactivity in the tea leaves themselves versus the diluted tea–and how the most useful measurements should be conducted. THis is particularly relevant for teas like matcha where the drinker consumes the finely ground leaves and is not simply a matter of the dilute tea.

    I purchase tea directly from Japan from yuuki-cha.com, an entirely organic outfit that sources most of its tea from southern/western Japan on the island of Kyushu. They indicate the tea is safe and show the reports of the tests done on their tea.

    Thoughts? Comments?

  105. Silas says

    Chris, you won’t find peer reviewed evidence. All the truthful info is being suppressed. In this case you should consider safety first. The truth/evidence won’t be reveal until its too late. And no one here is saying give up seafood entirely. Just that eating pacific seafood is not the safest choice. I’m shocked how stubborn you’re being on this. How can you possibly base your recommendation on out-dated research and feel comfortable with it?? I can’t understand your thought process. Maybe you’ve been eating too much radioactive pacific fish???

  106. Chris Kresser says

    So far no one has presented peer-reviewed evidence that the levels of cesium-134 and cesium-137 in Pacific seafood are harmful.

    I have not argued in this article, or elsewhere, that radiation exposure from Fukushima is not potentially very dangerous. The issue at hand is whether consuming seafood caught in the Pacific at typical levels of intake is cause for concern.

    Yes, in an ideal world we’d never be exposed to any toxins. But that’s not the world we live in. The question is whether the considerable benefits of seafood consumption outweigh the risks (if indeed there are any) of eating seafood with levels of cesium that are orders of magnitude below the established limits.

    To put this in perspective, heart disease is by far the biggest killer in the U.S. Eating fish regularly has been shown to decrease total mortality by up to 17%, depending on the study you look at. Even if eating Fukushima-contaminated seafood raised the risk of fatal cancers by 1% (which I haven’t seen evidence to support), there’s still a net survival advantage from eating fish.

    These choices are rarely black and white. Giving up seafood entirely is not without potentially serious consequences (increased risk of heart disease and a long list of chronic, inflammatory diseases).

    I will continue to research this and if I encounter convincing evidence that the harms of eating Pacific-caught seafood outweigh the benefits, I’ll change my viewpoint. I’ve done so in the past with other issues, and would certainly so in this case.

    • says

      Hi Chris,
      Cesium is only one of the dangerous radionuclides. There is a lot of research out there. I pulled many studies a while back and posted some at: lotuscenter.com/facebook. If facebook had an easier way to search I would paste them here for you.

      Seafood consumption is not a requirement for us to live healthy lives and as you know from Chinese medicine, fish has definite contraindications for many conditions. Recent studies have also linked it to increases in prostate cancer and I predict they will find more problems with it.

      Also, we can get similar, if not better decreases in all-cause mortality from other sources. For example, vitamin C decreased all-cause mortality by 20% (more than fish consumption) without the risks of fish consumption. This was by simply increasing consumption of fruits and vegetables by only 50g per day. Lancet. 2001 Mar 3;357(9257):657-63.

      Best,
      Brandon Horn, PhD, LAc

      • Alex says

        Dear Brandon,

        It seems you have something against fish consumption in general, as I see:

        http://blog.lotuscenter.com/2009/09/23/avoid-fish-oils-during-flu-season/

        Since when vitamin D3 is bad for our immune system?
        Also, mice fed while infected with flu are more likely to die, nice story: first of all they are mice not humans.
        Secondly, they died of what, since the experiment itself claims that the level of inflammation greatly decreased (which I consider a very good thing)?
        Was the same experiment done also with mice NOT infected with flu to ensure that the combo is flu+oil and not the oil itself?

        • says

          Alex,

          First, yes the study had a control group that was not fed fish oil. Second, you cannot equate fish oil with Vitamin D. That would be like discussing high intake of Cassava root and saying “since when is it bad to eat potassium?”. Vitamin D is an entirely different topic, but there are also problems with Vitamin D in supplemental form. I think people have this all or nothing attitude about supplements. Its either good or bad. I think that’s a mistake.

          You are correct that mice are not humans, but you cannot run prospective mortality studies like these on humans. Mouse models have shown to be reasonably predictive for humans. In the blog post you cited, I responded to someone else who had the same comment. Furthermore, Chinese medicine, which is based on thousands of years of clinical experience, says that fish are contraindicated during colds. The study simply clarifies the mechanisms for why these doctors have been advising against fish consumption during colds/flu for thousands of years.

          Considering inflammation decrease to be a good thing is dangerous in my opinion. I have discussed this many times and provided data in our postings on our blog and facebook (our blog was down for a while so we were using facebook as our outlet). Inflammation is necessary for so many things and the fact that fish oils are strongly antiinflammatory is one of the reasons they are problematic in a wide range of diseases. Yes they can be useful for some diseases, I am not saying they are never useful, but they are a far cry from a panacea that everyone should take.

          • Alex says

            > First, yes the study had a control group that was not fed fish oil

            My question was: has there been a group that was fed oil, but not infected with flu.

            > Chinese medicine, which is based on thousands of years of clinical experience, says that […]

            I see.

            • says

              I think the point of the study was to see what effect fish oils had on mice with the flu. So the authors didn’t necessarily think it would add anything to have a control group of mice just fed fish oils that didn’t have the flu. But if you’re thinking that the fish oils might have killed the mice even without the flu, other studies would suggest that to be unlikely. However, if that were the case, then even more reason to avoid fish (at least fish oil) : )

              • Alex says

                Of maybe that rodents should avoid fish oil.

                Calciferols (vitamins D), cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) and ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) are used as rodenticides. They are toxic to rodents for the same reason they are important to humans: they affect calcium and phosphate homeostasis in the body.

                Back to the original topic (we are alot OT here), some years ago I bought a geiger counter to test food for radiations. I consider it the most useful gadget I have in my kitchen. I’ll follow-up here if I find some radioactive salmon.

                • says

                  As I mentioned, other studies on fish oil and mice would suggest that they extend the life of mice under various conditions. So whatever vitamin D there may be in the oil apparently is not negatively impacting them. For example a recent study on a mouse Lupus model: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23918873

                  You won’t really be able to detect significant levels of radiation in food with a geiger counter unless the levels are pretty high. The reason is that background radiation is higher than potentially dangerous levels of ingested radiation. Because of this you would have to set up a radiation proof chamber from lead or cinder blocks (and you need a lot of cinder blocks). When your meter reads zero (meter needs of course to be inside the chamber and you need to be able to read it in there) then stick the food in there. The meter would have to have a memory so you could read it after you opened the chamber.

    • Joe H says

      Peer reviewed means (accepted by those who pay the salaries) of university professors.. ….correct? Again, who has the most lose by letting the cat out of the bag?

  107. says

    I find the comments here thought-provoking. Any thoughts on preventative measures to minimize uptake of radioactive elements? Does taking high doses of clean iodine help, as some claim? I have to travel to Japan soon.

    • Bob says

      Grace, there are several items you can consume that will help detox radioactive elements from your body as well as radio protect your tissues. DIM found in cruciferous vegetables like broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts, and others have been shown scientifically to not only protect you from absorbing radionuclides but actually help to repair DNA damaged by them. Zeolites, taken internally (I take liquid zeolites myself) bind to heavy metals and radioactive particles which safely carries them out of the body in stools and urine. A good natural nascient iodine supplement will help protect your thyroid from Iodine 131. Just eating Himalayan pink salt, at about 1/4 teaspoon daily, will give you a good dose of natural iodine. Make sure you eat enough calcium/potassium/magnesium as this will help block uptake of cesium. Your body cannot tell the difference between these minerals and will absorb cesium if the others are lacking. Activated charcoal will also help detox the intestinal tract from any absorbed particles. I would recommend chlorella but most of the algae comes from Japan and I’d stay away from ANY food coming from there unfortunately. Good luck.

  108. harold says

    my doc says NO amount of radiation exposure is SAFE. hates to order even xrays for that reason.
    since i think dr helen caldicott, a friend of a friend, would completely disagree with this article, i will see if i can get her t address it. she is currently touring the world to address the fukushima crisis and more. anecdotally, friends in bc, canada say there is a mass star fish die off occurring now. that gov’t dismisses a radiation cause. the locals do not.

  109. says

    Hi Chris,
    I appreciate all the research and work you do. However, this particular article has a number of common inaccuracies. Radioactive isotopes of cesium/strontium and potassium are not comparable. Your body rapidly eliminates and replaces potassium and the same cannot be said for cesium or strontium which can remain in the body indefinitely; incorporated into your bones and other tissue.

    You also cannot compare flight or medical device radiation to internally ingested radiation on a 1 to 1 basis. When you ingest and don’t eliminate radioactive material it becomes an internal emitter and provides you with a constant stream of radiation 24/7/365. In fact, low levels of radiation can be more carcinogenic in some cases than higher levels. Some of these experiments were done with dosing radiation for treating hyperthyroid conditions: they found more cancers when they used lower radiation doses. Many seemingly credible scientists have gone on the air and written articles comparing ingested radioactivity with CT scans and so forth when they have no understanding of this difference. They downplay radiation risks to falsely reassure the public.

    Wikipedia has a good article on the BED which discusses the potassium issue a little: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose.

  110. Saori says

    I almost thought that I was reading a propaganda article from TEPCO and Japanese government. The radiation that we’re getting is just like an airplane trip or a chest x-ray, they say. But the difference is that these are short-term exposures that they are comparing the radiation to. A plane trip is a few hours, and a dental x-ray takes a few moments; your exposures are over. On the other hand, the trouble with the radioactive materials that you take into your body (fr food or air) is that that radiation exposure doesn’t end there after few moments or few hours. It can be continuous in our bodies…!

    • Altair-IV says

      When you talk about dose; you are talking about a given amount of biological damage. It’s the same as the difference between drinking an entire bottle of vodka over a 4-hour airline flight; vs drinking the bottle over several months. Sure the 4-hour time is less than several months; but it was the same dose; it was the same amount of vodka, i.e. one bottle.

      As one might expect, drinking a bottle of vodka in a single 4-hour airline flight has more of an effect than drinking that same bottle over a period of months.

  111. says

    I have worked with a number of Polynesian children during the 1970s with cancer associated with French nuclear testing. More recently, three people with cancer after being in the areas downwind of Chernobyl, and a young man with bone cancer who’s parents worked in the area.

    There is no safe level for ionising radiation. Especially for elements like plutonium which will concentrate and remain in the food chain for many thousands of years. The same as what had been happening with Mercury but potentially many, many times worse.

    Plutonium particles that are inhaled will remain in the body for life. It is very wrong to compare this sort of exposure with that of a plane trip.

    Fukushima is shaping up to be the worst industrial accident in all of human history. It is only beginning. We have every reason to be deeply concerned.

    Of course officials and the nuclear industry are going to downplay matters. I ask you this: Do you believe them?

    There is

    • Smenette says

      Good thing there’s no plutonium in the food chain from Fukushima Daiichi, then.

      That’s called a “strawman”, Gary.

      • Williaum says

        @Smenette: Three reactor cores containing hundreds of tons of various concentrated radionuclides have melted down and completely breached their containment. The location of this molten corium is unknown to the public, due to radiation levels reportedly so high that both human and robotic observes are incapable of withstanding them long enough to report back any findings. The hundreds of tons of corium has almost certainly burned, melted, and burrowed its way into the ground underneath the reactor buildings that themselves originally housed the self-immolating GE BWR-3s. TEPCO has disclosed that the runaway corium is in contact with the underground river system that flows beneath Fukushima Daiichi. This is one of the primary channels by which the Pacific has been polluted by 300+ tons of water highly contaminated with all of the radionuclides present in the core of a GE BWR-3 (bit.ly/akiKpT).

        In addition to the two identified bodies of water exhibiting levels of radioactive contamination deadly to humans in the immediate vicinity, a truly alarming concern is the corium will soon/has contacted the aquifer that supplies the entirety of Tokyo with its drinking water. This aquifer extends underneath the underground river itself that rushes down from the hillsides of Fukushima to meet the still-steaming remains of the three reactor cores that experienced uncontainable meltdown. If/when the corium reaches the aquifer, ~40 million people will be consuming all of the following radionuclides (bit.ly/akiKpT) in their water, any food that contacts or is grown with said water, or any animals that drink contaminated water during their lifetimes.

        On top of the triple uncontained reactor melt-throughs, industrial disasters for which we have no known solution, the plant experienced several violent events after the earthquake, resulting tsunami, and meltdowns. Multiple hydrogen conflagrations (read: not explosions) lit up the buildings that housed reactors 1–4, tearing through walls and roofs of the reactor buildings and the spent fuel pools that sit on top of them. Unit 3 and its top-story spent-fuel pool – which contained MOX assemblies, or mixed-oxide fuel rods (read: an experimental mixture of Uranium oxide plus Plutonium oxide) – experienced in an even more extreme event. Arnie Gunderson (bit.ly/17kwohO) postulates that the explosion (read: sky-high explosion, not ground-level hydrogen conflagration) witnessed at Unit 3 was due to a “prompt criticality” in the spent fuel pool. A prompt criticality, of course, is the event that initiates the uncontainable fissioning of an atomic bomb.

        So we have uncontainable corium entrenching itself in or right next to the water supply of one of the most highly populated metropolitan areas on Earth, and we have hundreds of tons of spent fuel rods that exploded into the sky when Unit 3 detonated in the open atmosphere. The vaporized elements and hot particles (again, for your reference, the list of all the radionuclides produced by a BWR-3: bit.ly/akiKpT) have been detected all over the world in the air, the water, and the soil.

        Radiation exposure is morbid enough on its own; uncontained environmental distribution of radionuclide pollution has worse affects on biological systems. Bioaccumulation and biomagnification are two ways that radiological environmental toxicity harm the food chain. Oh wait, that’s what we were talking about – Plutonium in the food chain. Yeah, that already happened. Sorry to break it to you. :(

        • Williaum says

          The last sentence of my first paragraph should read “the Pacific has been polluted [daily] by 300+ tons of water highly contaminated with all of the radionuclides present in the core of a GE BWR-3.”

  112. Pokelo says

    Sorry to do this to you Chris, but you have lost your sense of discernment in the land of peleo poms poms. Go Team!! While you site data from one source, please contact the independent scientific community in the various countries that impacts in addition to UW, Oregon State, UCLA, Scripps, UH, Stanford, and even more importantly independent scientists.. Low-level radiation is not harmless, there was no background cesium radiation until recently, and our bodies have adapted to excrete radiation from sources such as bananas … but not cesium from fish.

  113. Roman says

    Is it sensible to compare an amount of radiation from an isotope that one ingests and keeps for potentially a long time to an amount of transient radiation obtained during an airplane flight?

    • Anon says

      This is my concern. Getting exposed to rays in transit is far different than swallowing the source of radiation, and having it continually emitting and causing damage over a lifetime.

      Cancer is an end point of genetic damage. Some people may suffer genetic damage that expresses itself in subtle mutations in their childrens’ genome. Genetic mutations cause other diseases, metabolic dysregulation, etc–not just cancer. And I trust EPA’s idea of safe about as much as I trust in the govt’s idea of what my daily vitamin intake in my Count Chocula should be.

      Until Japan is fully open about the Fukushima situation, and inviting the international community to survey and test, I’m not going to take their word for it. Pacific fisheries such as salmon have been pretty well managed, and now this. It’s a shame.

    • Altair-IV says

      Actually, the transient dose is WORSE!! Suppose you are going to drink an entire bottle of vodka. Which will have a more pronounced effect on you; drinking the entire bottle in one airplane flight; or drinking the entire bottle over a period of months, a little every day. Radiation damage is actually correlated with dose rate; how fast a given amount of dose you are exposed to. Therefore, the airplane analogy is actually conservative. For a given dose, one expects more biological damage if that dose is received in a few hour airline flight, as opposed to being ingested as a “committed dose” and beind delivered over several months.

  114. Lindsay says

    The problem is, Kris, that evidence is being suppressed. You should know better than anyone that industry suppresses research that harms industry. We have seen it in nutrition since Ancel Keys. Don’t err on the side of safe-until-proven-unsafe with this issue. That attitude could irreparably harm everyone.

  115. Stefanie says

    I do not agree with your recommendations Chris. Cesium radiation is not something that has acceptable levels. 0 is the only acceptable level. Also, since this disaster, the ‘acceptable level’ for human consumption/exposure has been raised. Yes, they just went ahead and raised it. So although the food may still contain levels of radiation within acceptable, it’s higher than it was 10 years ago and not something I want in my body. This is a very hot topic right now and our officials are doing everything they can to keep the lid on the seriousness of the situation, most likely to avoid widespread panic, but I’m buying wild salmon from Ireland for the time being. I do however want to mention that I appreciate your ongoing dedication to the health and well being of your readers.

    • Monica Englander says

      Nicely stated. I am a big fan of the Doctor (Hmmm…. sounds like Dr. Who), and I still agree with you: the did just go ahead and raise the limit — poof — like that means it’s safe.
      I don’t think it’s helpful to freak out, and I do think our own Atlantic Farm-raised fish is grossly mishandled, abused, and polluted — I would eat wild Alaskan seafood and fish, but frankly, I think we’re all exposed to so much pollution of every kind, every day, that we are going to have to substantially change our world and our business practices, in terms of food and air and water pollution, before we are going to start having “normal” levels of risk again. Still: me love the Doctor, and I think your comment here, Stephanie was respectfully and truthfully stated, in a kind, non-combative way.

  116. Susan says

    While this might be true that the overall risk level is low, don’t rely on the international dose limit – they can and do adjust this number higher if needed.

  117. Silas says

    Kris, I think you are doing a dis-service to your readers. Tons of radiation/nuclear waste is being poured into the pacific on a daily basis for the past 2 1/2 years since the Fukushima disaster, with no end in sight. How can you continue to recommend pacific fish to your readers?? Your “research article” is based on levels from Aug 2011 (5 months from the disaster). At that point in time the levels may have been safe. Fast forward 2 years, with continued radiation leaking into the ocean, and the story drastically changes. You can eat the seafood if you want but I’m gonna stay away and I’m definitely going to recommend my patients stay away. I hope your readers have more sense than to believe what you have written. You have done poor research in this case. I hope none of you patients get sick based on YOUR recommendations. Common sense should tell you to stay away from seafood from that area. Very disappointed in your so called expertise.

    • Chris Kresser says

      You have provided no evidence to support your claims. If you have evidence supporting the idea that eating seafood from the Pacific exposes us to harmful levels of radiation, I’d love to see it.

      • Silas says

        Do you honestly believe there would be public evidence of my statements?? It would cause mass panic and unrest. I don’t need evidence. I use my common sense. Evidence doesn’t over-rule common sense. Evidence is man-made. Common sense is God-given. Who do you trust?

        • Joe Hart says

          I find it very disturbing that there aren’t hundreds of government and private researchers out there studying this and providing in depth research. This fact alone is my basis for a massive cover-up. Consider, most scientific research is paid for by ” the powers that be ” and it’s those same sources of money that have the most to lose from telling us that we have a real problem on our hands. So this is my take, I’m going with the assumption that our government, who we KNOW lies to us on a daily basis, is feeding us a load of bull. As of today, there are no government studies being done! It is a fact crustaceans are dying along the coast and that abnormal die offs are occurring. If you still can’t ask yourself why these issues aren’t being looked at extensively, you must have your head buried in sand.

          • MikeWK says

            Except that there are hundreds of government and private researchers out there studying this and providing in depth research. But since you and Silas have decided to automatically filter out any results that don’t already match your viewpoint, I suppose it would appear to you that nothing is being done.

            It’s part of the typical conspiracy theory fallacy, “Lack of proof for my point of view is proof my point of view is correct, because if I was correct then for [insert reason here] no proof would be published.” In formal terms, if P implies Q, and Q is true, you’re trying to imply P is true. It’s called the fallacy of the converse, and it’s an incorrect application of logic. In this case, P is “There is a conspiracy”, Q is “there is no proof” and your fallacy is all wrapped up in a nice tidy bow.

        • MT says

          Here here Sila where has our common sense gone off too? I also agree that radiation from the sun is not the same as what comes from the radioactive chemicals from a nuclear reactor melt down. As I said in my post (waaay) above. Common sense is what I am choosing to listen to here. Watch in two years time when the tune changes as it often does with those charged with “protecting” this world. Industry comes first always. It is only after the fact that truth comes out. When it is so obvious that it can no longer be denied. For many people it will be too late then.

          The oceans are polluted…of this we can be sure. So the life trying to sustain itself within that pollution is naturally…polluted! It is not rocket science. If you eat things that exist in a polluted environment you get a bit of that every time you it eat. It builds up over time and in most cases the cause can never be traced back to a source. We can’t totally protect ourselves from all of the pollution in this world but let us not make it worse by not taking common sense precautions.

      • says

        I think Silas has raised an excellent point re: the (nearly) three years of radiation contamination on Pacific seafood.
        And perhaps we should reverse *your* question, Chris: Do you have data more recent than 2011 on the safety of fish/other seafood/seaweed that have grown or passed through Pacific Ocean waters?

      • Pat S. says

        Actually.. I don’t believe you have any credible evidence either.. you stated and I quote: “To date, I haven’t seen any credible evidence suggesting that there’s even a minuscule risk from eating fish caught in the Pacific ocean. (Please respond in the comments section if you’re aware of any such evidence).” They have “raised” the acceptable levels of radiation that humans can take in (they have to because they are exposing us to so much)People have WAY more health problems than ever before (even upon birth–how does that happen when you’ve been in the womb for 9 months.. OBVIOUSLY whatever toxins your mother has been taking in/exposed to).. There hasn’t been long enough time for anyone to study the long term effects of fukushima but common sense must prevail. Not supposed to drink chlorine bleach yet its in our drinking water…

      • Alie says

        I understand Chris, that you base your research on what governments want to publish. Don’t forget that media and governments say whatever they want us to hear…not more and not less. Unless you actually are a scientist specialized in radiation or your source is a close friend studying this matter, you and we have no clue what the danger really is.

        Shall I remind you what happened overseas in Europe after the Chernobyl disaster ? The French government for example had the media say to everyone that there were no risk, that the radioactive cloud didn’t cross the border. 16 years later, the truth came up…and so did a lot of thyroid cancers.

        It is naive to think that the Fukushima disaster let the ocean safe. It has been leaking since the disaster occurred and is still leaking no matter what the Japanese are saying. It is (and that comes from a friend of mine who is a nuclear engineer) impossible to control such a leak.

        However, I believe in the USA that you have much more to worry about than the radioactive fishes…beginning with all the fruits and vegetables kindly provided to you by Monsanto. Unfortunately if you start eating what’s safe only, you won’t have a lot to eat….

        Greetings from NZ

      • says

        This is not exactly a reply (I just didn’t know where else to put it). Back in the 1950’s, atomic bombs were being set off on a regular basis in Nevada. My dad taught physics and had a Geiger Counter he would use to measure the amount of radiation fall-out in Sacramento. The amount was alarmingly high. We worried about drinking milk from cows who ate contaminated grass. (Strontium 90?) Well, I’m 75 now and don’t have cancer even though I drink milk.

  118. says

    Interesting data… it still makes me uneasy about eating food out of such polluted waters. But what can you do? Getting extremely difficult to find clean food these days.

  119. says

    Kris,
    You’re implying here that all forms of radiation are the same (or at least, have the same effects on health), that radioactive K-40 (in bananas) has the same effects on health as cesium-134 and cesium-137. That may or may not be the case; I don’t know.
    I do find it curious that the benchmark of harm you use is fatal cancers (compared to nonfatal cancers, or other types of disruptions to cellular or systemic function), when even the NAS study you quote acknowledges that “uncertainties remain regarding the assessment of cancer risk at low doses of ionizing radiation to humans.”
    Finally, this issue is also about adding to our body burden of radiation, not simply comparing one level of radiation exposure to another and feeling better that bananas and long-distance airline flights expose us to radiation, too. That’s something you don’t address, unfortunately.

    • Heddy says

      Good points Angela.
      So far with everything I’ve researched I will not eat fish(from any water source as it’s all polluted whether is Fukushima, corexit in the Gulf etc;) nor seaweed nor tea from Japan anymore. It’s simply not worth the risk.

    • SophieE says

      I was about to post something similar but just in the form of a wiki excerpt

      “The validity of the banana equivalent dose concept has been challenged. Critics, including the EPA,[9] pointed out that the amount of potassium (and therefore of 40K) in the human body is fairly constant because of homeostasis,[10] so that any excess absorbed from food is quickly compensated by the elimination of an equal amount.[1][11]
      It follows that the additional radiation exposure due to eating a banana lasts only for a few hours after ingestion, namely the time it takes for the normal potassium contents of the body to be restored by the kidneys. The EPA conversion factor, on the other hand, is based on the mean time needed for the isotopic mix of potassium isotopes in the body to return to the natural ratio after being disturbed by the ingestion of pure 40K; which was assumed by EPA to be 30 days.[9] If the assumed time of residence in the body is reduced by a factor of ten, for example, the estimated equivalent absorbed dose due to the banana will be reduced in the same proportion.
      These amounts may be compared to the exposure due to the normal potassium content of the human body, 2.5 g per kg,[12] or 175 grams in a 70 kg adult. This potassium will naturally generate 175 g × 31 Bq/g ≈ 5400 Bq of radioactive decays, constantly through the person’s adult lifetime.”

    • Peter says

      If we look at this issue from an ancestral perspective, it would seem that actual ingestion of particles from man-made nuclear fuel would pose a much greater risk than background exposure to ionizing radiation we all evolved with. And a majority of background radiation is to what nuclear physicists even call Primordial Nuclides:

      “most (if not all) isotopes were abundant at the creation of the Earth 4.6 billion years ago and the only ones left are the ones with long (~billions of years) half-lives. These are the so-called primordial nuclides.”

      http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4920#comment-13971
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_nuclide

      Also, these measurements are only tracking Cesium 134 and 137 isotopes, with no mention of Plutonium or Strontium 90, both of which were released in the Fukushima disaster. So I don’t think we have enough information yet to declare total safety. I would advocate expanded testing instead.

      • says

        Peter,
        Thanks for this. And I didn’t even consider the plutonium or stronium-90 releases–curious that the article Chris cited doesn’t–I don’t think—even mention these.
        I appreciate, too, your comments re evolution and background radiation from ” primordial nuclides” and that from “manmade” nuclear materials.

        • Peter says

          Angela. I’m not trying to gang up on Chris here because I know he does his homework and I trust him more than just about any other source. In fact, I was actually quite relieved to read his take on this. But as much as I’d like to relax, I’m concerned there just isn’t adequate testing being done on fish, or the bulk of products imported from the region. I also suspect that numbers are being fudged, if not a full out black-market for contaminated goods.

          I also didn’t mean to imply that naturally occurring radiation was safe, just that it might be hard to draw conclusions based on that alone.

          • Julie says

            Thank you for your comments. I too respect the majority of Chris’ opinions. If I ever need consult a health professional to hone in on stubborn health issues, I will definitely consult with Chris. However in this area, I think he is incorrect.

  120. lindsay says

    Your recommendations are only valid if the science behind them is valid, but I am wary of the scientists and officials who are telling us the radiation levels are safe. It is pretty clear that the Japanese government has gone to great lengths to try to hide the extent of the radiation released from Fukushima and lied to its citizens in the process. That deceit alone makes me question other people of authority telling us everything is a-okay. I find Helen Caldicott to have very interesting things to say on this matter and I would think twice before telling people they have nothing to worry about. The Soviet Union told its people they would be okay after Chernobyl. You might dislike sites you consider fear mongering but thanks to the internet and free exchange of information today’s consumers have the choice whether to believe what authorities are telling them to believe.

  121. Laurie says

    The paranoia about the wild fish drives me crazy. I’m not saying contamination hasn’t occured but it’s very hard to imagine that eating CAFO meats would somehow be safer than eating wild fish. I live in the Arctic and we definitely have contaminnats in our wild food, but they are still FAR healthier than most of the farmed animals that people in the south are consuming. There are no bubbles of uncontaminated food on this planet, but we need to make the best decisions with what we have available. Use our brains instead of being ruled by fear and propaganda.

  122. Alex says

    I know I may look a bit paranoid, but I have a geiger counter at home and when I am not 100% sure of the origin of my ingredients, I do a quick check (seaweed and fish of course, but also game meat and coconut products).
    So far, the only thing that has proven to be radioactive in my house are the energy saving light bulbs ;)

    • Jon says

      Geiger counter will not be able to pick up small amounts of cesium 137, Iodine 131, among other radioactive Isotopes. Unfortunately all it takes is a small amount for said Isotopes to cause thyroid cancer or cancers in your GI tract.

  123. Peter says

    Chris, have you looked into Japanese green tea contamination? I’ve wondering about from the reports I’ve read and since green leafy vegetables are sensitive to absorbing any radioactive fallout.

    http://diversejapan.com/2012/05/04/tests-results-for-radioactive-cesium-in-shizuoka-prefecture-green-tea/
    http://diversejapan.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/shizuoka-tea-test-results.pdf
    http://www.pref.shizuoka.jp/sangyou/sa-340/20110520_test_results_radio_activity.html

    I love my Matcha and Sencha, but admit to cutting back over concerns.

    • Chris Kresser says

      Not a single reference in that article about safety of consuming contaminated seafood. The question isn’t whether radiation is still being released into the ocean (it is), it’s whether eating seafood will expose us to harmful levels of radiation. (It won’t.) That article quotes Natural News, which is a fear mongering site that rarely (if ever) provides legitimate references. It also makes several claims for which it provides no credible evidence. Not at all convincing.

      • Meldyweldy says

        I have learned that plutonium is now in the pacific ocean, air and soil and drinking water. Plutonium is the nastiest among all the radiations. It comes in extremely tiny molecules and not detected by gieger counters.
        What is your view on this.

        Melly

        • Alex says

          Plutonium is a pretty big atom. And it releases Alpha radiations, which are easily detected by geiger counters.

          Anyway, we detonated dozens of atomic bombs over and even in the oceans in the last decades and everything was fine, omnivores could eat fish and vegans were happy with spirulina and wakame algae. Now the problem is some contaminated water leaking from a power plant?

        • Roman says

          Melly, plutonium is NOT radiation. It’s a chemical element that EMITS radiation. Geiger counters don’t detect molecules, so their sizes don’t matter. Geiger counters detect “the emission of nuclear radiation — alpha particles, beta particles, and gamma rays.”

          Plutonium is a particularly bad source of radiation to ingest because it can accumulate in the bones, and its half-life is about 80 million years.

          • Altair-IV says

            “Plutonium” ( chemical element ) doesn’t have a half-life. Particular ISOTOPES of Plutonium have half-lives. The most common isotope of Plutonium created by nuclear power plants and bombs is Pu-239 which has a half-life of 24,100 years; not 80 million. Only the Pu-244 isotope has a half-life of 80 million years; but that isotope is very rarely produced by reactors and bombs. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-244

        • Caroline says

          I’m sure you probably think there’s nothing wrong with GMO’s and Monsanto too. And the cancer industry is all good too? We are all being brainwashed by the powers that be and it’s obviously working. I have been fighting cancer for over two years now and did a whole lot of research. It left me horrified at how deceitful, dishonest and corrupt our whole system is. It is NOT about our health at all. It’s all about money and how “they” can make the most. We can only rely on our own knowledge and common sense. There is no evidence out there that isn’t backed by a corrupt and dishonest system!

          • Alysia says

            Caroline-I hear everything you’re saying…medical care/ Healthcare in this country is only interested in treating cancer, not curing. And only because there is no money to be made in telling people a cure is available. There definitely is one….. But if it doesn’t generate the same or more cash flow that current cancer treatments the medical community would be out of business, & obviously they won’t have that.

            • Laurel says

              I can’t believe that. There are too many people who actually care about our health. If there were a cure we would know about it!

          • nina says

            You are so right Caroline…we have been brainwashed to the point of stupidity, en masse.
            The bottom line is the profit the corporations are making on us. I am sorry you have been caught in the machine….I wish you good health and continuing common sense!

      • silas says

        Hey Chris, why are you bashing the Natural News site?? Mike Adams is trying to protect his fellow man. You are telling people to eat Pacific seafood and mercury laden fish. Very childish attack.

    • says

      Roxanna, those very worried about the radioactivity they find in food with Geiger Counters objectively have cause for concern, but problem is they rarely dig deeper to see if they can their definite and conclusive-sounding claims backed up by the lab tests, which are essential, absolutely required for the conclusions they make. I had the same concern and actually had samples tested. Over 3,000 Bq/kg in kelp, and I recommend eating it, here’s why:

      http://allegedlyapparent.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/why-150-bq-cs-137-is-health-hazardous-while-150-bq-k-40-is-recommended-for-health/

  124. Marija says

    Chris,
    Would the same apply to the seaweed from Japan? Are there any reasons to be concerned about consuming kelp noodles or nori?
    Thanks.

    • Chris Kresser says

      As far as I’ve seen, contamination of marine biota is well below recommended limits even at fairly high levels of consumption. In the article, I mentioned that you’d have to eat 1/3 a pound of even the most highly contaminated, bottom-feeding fish to get close to the international limit for radiation in food.

      • Stephen Lonefeather says

        Well, they often conveniently raise limits of toxins just to keep the market open. Please cite your sources. Thank you.

        • Bob says

          Thank you Steven, well said!
          Yes dear blogger who claims ingesting radioactive fish with isotopes from Fuckusallshima’s explosions and continuing meltdowns are safe…
          Give some credibility and cite your sources.

      • Stephen Lonefeather says

        Correct, Chris. The levels are not lethal – yet. But because of the steady increase of radiation into the ocean the levels are rising. Albeit a click or two at a time, but we must keep a vigilant eye on this. Remember Radiation is accumulative. It will not go away in your lifetime. You get to keep what you get … Therein lies the rub.

      • bill says

        Chris, I think the idea behind your views in this article and in general is that by far the single greatest factor we all suffer from is that the Western diet is unhealthy. I suspect you recognize we’re in a ‘world of poop’ here, but that eating the fish you’re recommending will be a positive thing in one’s life. I, for one, welcome and appreciate your views and hope you have great success promoting them. I’ve been searching the right diet since 1980 and am quite hopeful with what I’m learning from you and others this past year or two. But for the very priviledged or simply wealthy, or the naive, I wonder what type of diet is available. I mean the diet that has zero risks and total nutrition. Probably superior above all others. Actually, forget I asked, I’m not interested.

    • Ann says

      I’d like to know what was in this article that was creditable!!! The pacific ocean is fried! People can be so gullible

    • ann says

      Who are you?? Where do you get your info from!?!?! I can’t believe these people are falling for what you say!! Nah the fish is fine if you only eat half a bite a day….wow

      • Chris Kresser says

        I get my info from peer-reviewed, credible scientific research rather than unsubstantiated internet hype.

        • Silas says

          Chris, I can’t believe you are sticking to your guns on this one. The media is LYING about the effects of Fukushima. It seems you have been bought out by Big Pharma or some other government agency. Keep spreading the dis-information and I’ll keep telling people to stay away from your advice. I’m just curious, how much did they pay you?

          • Jon says

            Chris Kresser the article you wrote is extremely misleading. It is not just about radiation exposure. You intake one microscopic particle of Cesium 137 or Iodine 131 and you have cancer 3-10 years down the line. Also there is no safe amount of radiation. Citing Government funded studies is disingenuous to all of your readers. You do realize after Chernobyl happened multiple Government and the IAEA covered up the real effects for 30 years, while thousands were dying? That was just one reactor that was contained fairly quickly. This is 4 reactors that have had zero percent containment since day one……Use some common sense.

            • John says

              Jon, there is a safe level of radiation exposure. We are exposed to it all the time. In this case, I must agree with Dr. Kresser. What matters is the amount of radiation we are exposed to plus the permanence of any radiation due to the radioactive isotopes embedding themselves in our bodies.

              That said, Dr. Kresser, I do look at your research askanse. Polonium 210, the most common variant of this radioactive metaloid, has a half life of just over 138 days (other isotopes can have longer half lives). It is found mostly in Uranium ore deep beneath the ground and is not normally accessable. It is highly unlikely that there would be any traceable amount of that isotope in the oceans through natural means, though I do concede that an ore could be exposed to the waters of the world either by river flow or by geological activity it would still be quite rare. The fact that you indicate levels of Polonium found are at about 600 times the levels Cesium found indicate that the levels of Polonium are at somewhat more than traceable levels. That indicates a radioactive decay from a uranium based fuel, not a natural flow due to a river. Your statement actually adds fuel to the fire and indicates, quite strongly, that your research and analysis is flawed and that there is more going on than realized.

              • Cameron says

                This is not quite accurate. The measurement of Pollonium 210 in the environment has been widely studied in the hepatopancreas of Krill. In 1984, the level of Po 210 in Antarctic Krill (Euphasia superba) was found to be 54 picocuries per gram dry weight. If we can find a recent measure of Po 210 in Pacific Krill, we can make a more unbiased assessment of the situation.

            • Matt says

              “there is no safe amount of radiation”

              You know the sun is spewing unfathomable amounts of radiation out into our solar system at all times right?

            • Karen says

              You do realize that it hasn’t even been 30 years since Chernobyl happened, don’t you? If the effects had been covered up for 30 years, we wouldn’t have heard about it. And yet I can remember hearing about the effects pretty much since it happened.

              Less hype and more facts, please.

        • Allen Abrahams says

          This from VOA:
          http://www.voanews.com/content/fukushima-radiation-traced-in-pacific-seafood/1777465.html
          This peer reviewed paper:
          http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034004/

          These tell a different story.
          While you talk of radiation and dose, you ignore the real danger from ingestion of hot particles and do not differentiate between the two.
          This is the bait and switch that those who wish to down play the risk are doing. It is, in essence, a straw man argument; while your analysis may be correct, the underlying premise that is posited is defective.
          In your case you do not address the ingestion of hot particles. Your analysis just deals with the radiation dose received from handling and passing the emitter through your digestion. You do not address what happens when the emitter, whether a particle of cesium, iodine, calcium or one of the many radioactive isotopes released are incorporated into your flesh.
          Yes, you do receive a dose from the irradiated flesh of the fish while handling it and digesting it, but your obviously assuming that all radioactive particles are being passed out of your digestive system giving a one time dose.
          What is left out is the constant dose when a hot particle is incorporated into the flesh; it is not in contact with the flesh and evacuated out the bowel or through the urine, it is the flesh, permanently, giving a constant dose closer than contact, and accumulates, and only rendered harmless when it’s decay is complete.
          The dose received from the incorporation a of an emitter into the fiber of your body is not the same as a dose received from an emitter just passing through or in proximity to your body.
          Truly, distance and time is life.. the further away you are and the less time you are exposed the better. There is no escaping the an emitter incorporated into your body.

        • Hudson says

          Yeah, Chris, I can’t believe you don’t buy into unmitigated disaster-mongering! surely you’re a big pharma plant! or an FDA counter-intel agent!

        • Laurel says

          What sources? Specifically? If you get them from scientific sources why are they not noted? There is so much conjecture it is hard to know what is the truth and what is not. Both sides believe they are right. Where is the scientific evidence?

        • silas says

          Chris, Chris, Chris….. Here is a direct quote from another article you wrote:

          “I’ll be the first to admit that ‘lack of evidence is not evidence against'”

          So it seems you are at conflict with your own thoughts. The “lack of evidence” that you mention in this post really doesn’t matter, especially when YOUR first priority is do no harm. Time to use some common sense on the seafood issue, Chris.

  125. ReneeAnn says

    Most of our seafood comes from the Gulf. While I trust it more than fish from Asia, I wonder how clean the water is now. Do you have a credible source for assessing Gulf seafood?

  126. says

    Thanks! I’ve been wondering about this, but haven’t wanted to panic after reading some of those articles. Thanks for breaking down the nitty gritty. Now, off to have some tuna!

      • kevin says

        That is the only thing that might save them. We need a moratorium on fishing to let the populations back. This might do it!

        • Aiden says

          over-fishing ?? i caught like 5 in 30years life. and my friends and families probably the same. only few companies (owned by one person) over taken millions fishes and makes tons of money. for normal person, need to pay nearly $50 fishing permit for just 1 or few fish.. idk if the gov’t ask those companies to pay for fishing in the ocean.

          • Kent says

            Aiden, Your comment is anecdotal – what micro-community do you live in? So what if you personally have caught 5 fish. The problem goes beyond the amount of fish caught, it’s the resultant destruction of the ecosystems and flora and fauna from intensive fishing practices that are reducing the viability of the world’s oceans. Our marine areas are in decline and it’s a proven scientific fact! For Chris to end his article on this point blows his argument out of the water – pardon the pun.
            His quote ” If there’s any risk you should be concerned about when it comes to fish, it’s the risk of not eating enough!” Risk??? What unfounded, unscientific nonsense. I haven’t eaten marine based products in over 10 years and I’m in very good health and still here. Homo Sapiens are a terrestrial species, therefore we have evolved without the need to eat marine species. All of the omega oils etc can be found in land-based food sources, sure not in the same densities, but omega oils are not primarily responsible for good health!

            So let’s eat more fish then Chris, given the world’s exploding population and ongoing overfishing, then we will be in a real risk of having no fish.

            • Jon says

              If you don’t get Omega fish oil you need to eat grass fed meet. That is how humans got their DHA/EPA and CLA before we started stuffing them with grains. Also, land locked (from the ocean) people got plenty of fish from lakes and streams.

                • Ken L. says

                  Roman
                  “Humans are able to produce DHA and EPA from plant EFAs.”

                  Not in the quantities necessary for optimum health. Also this assumes the person eating the plant sources is in optimum health to begin with.
                  Vegetarians and vegans are usually deficient in EPA and DHA.
                  Very low n-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid status in Austrian vegetarians and vegans.
                  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18305382

    • kevin says

      The problem with this is the type and source of radiation. A radioactive fish will contain radioactive iodine. which will go right to your thyroid and cause cancer. If you are at risk to cancers, in the family, any radioactive material in you puts you at risk. The half life of this is centuries, these is no safe amount. The EMF and sun light radiation s no comparison. You want your children put at risk for cancer in 10 to 40 years? Because this kind of radioactive material will put them at risk. I have no doubt the governments will not give the truth of the risks. I will be up to us to find out. My guess is that researchers will do tests and publish them and then the government will say OK we did not know!

      • Stephen Lonefeather says

        I certainly agree, Kevin. As an x-ray tech for many years it is common knowledge that radiation is accumulative. (that’s why we all wear radiation badges) I live in Alaska and I love my fish, and I like Chris’s approach to health – most of the time. But you are definitely right here. He needs to catch up on the latest news from sources other than those that support the FDA.

        • says

          You can rid your body of radiation with an infrared sauna. Radiated cells are weak and easily are killed with the heat from an infrared sauna. Of course, you must do it daily for a few years, but you can rid your body of radiation, which is a very common problem in our society, not only from fish. You can read more on my blog post about infrared saunas and their benefits: http://www.liveto110.com/infrared-saunas/

          • Tammy Davis says

            Wendy, thank you for this information! I followed the link you provided and I feel so much better about the health risks now. The article is written so well and in laymen terms. All of It makes complete sense to me. I have been trying to pull together information to provide to people who are concerned about mitigating the illnesses that are more frequent and more severe as our environment becomes more toxic. This is awesome – again, THANK YOU!!

            • Silly People says

              This is snake oil, not legit. These do nothing for you to get rid of any “toxins” in your body, radioactive or not.

              • Ken L. says

                Silly
                “This is snake oil, not legit. These do nothing for you to get rid of any “toxins” in your body, radioactive or not.”

                Sauna as a valuable clinical tool for cardiovascular, autoimmune, toxicant- induced and other chronic health problems.
                http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21951023
                “Overall, regular sauna therapy (either radiant heat or far-infrared units) appears to be safe and offers multiple health benefits to regular users. ”

                A number of medical studies point to the benefits of saunas.

                • Seth says

                  “Alternative medicine review.” Just because it’s on PubMed does NOT mean your paper is reputable source!

        • Susan says

          I read that seafood from south of the equator does not contain radiation from Fukushima. So we are only taking Antarctic Krill supplements. Does anyone have a comment on this?

          • Ken L. says

            Susan
            There is much less mixing of the North and South Pacific than East and West Pacific.
            However to say there is none would be false.
            IT will spread slowly but it is happening.

      • Stephen Addy says

        Have to agree with Kevin. Just been looking through our tins of Pacific Tuna, Mackerel and not forgetting Pilchards, and decided to bin them. Why take a chance! Everything is stacked against us in this life so why make it worse. Of course they will say its ok to eat, they’ve got to think of their profits. They don’t give two f***s whether your dead or dying of cancer years down the line. How are you going to prove you got cancer from the fish you’ve eaten years ago! I was talking to an electrical wholesaler last week, who said that here in the UK at the docks, a shipment of brass fittings from India were heavily radioactive. In India, every bit of metal they got their hands on ended up in the smelting pot!

        • Elisa says

          Who are “they”..and if there’s a “they”, won’t “they” get sick, too? Why would any corporation say that it’s okay to eat fish when it’s likely most (if not all) of them eat it as well?

          • Joey Thunder says

            Are you for real? Why would a corporation, run for profit above all else care about their products potential effects ? You think john west executives eat tinned tuna? I wouldn’t eat any of the crap in most supermarkets if I earned thousands of dollars a week..

        • Nikele says

          Wait, what do you mean when you say ,” … in the UK at the docks, a shipment of brass fittings from India were heavily radioactive. In India, every bit of metal they got their hands on ended up in the smelting pot!?” What do you mean to say about the metal? Why does it have so much radiation? Is everything from India highly radioactive in your opinion? What other countries have this same problem? “The World is a Ghetto!” If you have never heard that song by the original group, I think War, check it out for sure! Thank you kindly for considering my perhaps silly question?

      • frontstmaui says

        Did you even READ the article. It says ALL food has some amount of radiation and toxins. Which means ANY radiation from food that has never been exposed to Fukushima will go straight to your thyroid and cause cancer. So we would be ALL dead fromcancer just by eating even Organic foods…

        • gwen says

          there is a difference between ionizing and non ionizing radiation, non ionizing radiation is from sun and such, ionizing is from xrays etc. Its the ionizing radiation which knocks DNA components from the DNA causing mutations, not non ionizing radiation. I really dont know why this is not common knowledge and people think its all the same type of radiation.

      • musings says

        Imagine if you will a family with small children living in Nevada 60 miles east, and later south, of the testing of atomic weapons in the years 1953-1957. There is a radiation calculator for that. You got much more than other populations in the US. I always wondered about my risk, and then I developed suspicious thyroid nodules in adulthood which caused me to lose half my thyroid and to develop a hypothyroid condition. Thyroid nodules were in my case benign, but some benign ones are signs of precursors of worse. Was this caused by my exposure in early childhood? Did my brother, who died at birth in 1953 (after several big dirty blasts), due to poor lung development lose his chance at life because we lived so near the testing? Are kids near Chernobyl growing up with problems? Nobody followed my family. They did track kids who remained living in the area, especially in Utah, and they found thyroid problems at a much earlier age than they should have them, with nodules such as those found in Chernobyl and which Japanese children may develop.

        So do I trust my government to monitor fish? Why should I? I can already see they are equating radioactive cesium exposure (which incorporates cesium into growing bones) with flying a plane. That is an indicator of a lie – and really an unnecessary one. But when lying is what you do well, then you cannot stop practicing it.

      • MT says

        I agree with your comment thank you for your common sense. Chris suggests “peer reviewed research” when deciding about the safety of our oceans and although the verdict on Fukashima is still out according to the Woods Hole Oceanic research center (they themselves are saying they do not actually know just how much radiation was released while at the same time advising us that fish is safe to eat and that cessium and iodine are diluted enough by the time it gets to US and Canadian shores to make fish safe to eat). So are they trying to tell us that they know exactly where every fish has swam? That fish is not just from that area, fish get around! We canniot test every last fish or eveyr last piece of plankton.

        According to the State of the Ocean report from Ocean.org a research group from Europe we cannot take only Fukashima into account. Global climate change, high mercury levels, atmospheric pollution in addition to the Fukashima disaster does not leave me feeling one bit safe about eating anything coming out of the Pacific or the gulf for that matter. Oil spills have contaminated the gulf for years

        The State of the Ocean Research has this to say:
        “Decreasing oxygen levels in the ocean caused by climate change and nitrogen run-off, combined with other chemical pollution and rampant overfishing are undermining the ability of the ocean to withstand these so-called ‘carbon perturbations’, meaning its role as Earth’s ‘buffer’ is seriously compromised.”

        Advising us to eat more fish is unwise…period. Chris Kessler cannot know for a fact that the fish is safe and the accumulation of toxins in our oceans are at abominable levels. Eat fish in moderation if you wanna avoid illness down the road. It is simply common sense. I don’t care what governments or scientists say…there is much they will not be able to quantify and fish are not stagnant creatures, they swim all over the place collecting toxins from oil spill dispersants, high mercury levels, atmospheric pollution, farming chemicals, AND radioactivity. Do the math….fish is not safe to eat in large amounts.

      • MT says

        Thank you Kevin! I agree with you totally. People… use common sense on this one. See my post below with research from State of the Ocean.org. (Chris wants sited “research” right?? Well there you are Chris read it and weep.

        FISH IS NOT SAFE TO EAT PEOPLE. Just think about it for a second. We are not “only” dealing with Fukashima. We are dealing with a host of contaminations over decades and the oceans can no longer mitigate the destruction. Fish are turning up mutated and sick all over the place. Go ahead, eat more fish, and as all that junk accumulates in your dna, in your fat, blood and bones and makes you sick 5 or 10 years down the road, who will trace it to the fish then? How can we really know what this sick sea life is doing to us?? We simply cannot know but we can use common sense.

        • says

          People, animals, & plants are turning up sick & mutated all over Earth but we still eat them.

          We even go to such lengths as to spend trillions of dollars on creating mutants through genetic engineering & cloning all over the world.

          I think that ocean life is more suited to deal with the toxins in the water than we are to deal with the concentrated toxins from the ocean life.

      • susi says

        I agree..we only know what they want us to know. Fish is dangerous to consume and will stay that way in my lifetime…..I love fish! And I am extremely angry about the contamination of our oceans.

      • chemvironmentalist says

        Check your facts, Half life of radioactive iodine (isotope 131) is about 8 days. Most people have a wildly exaggerated and unrealistic fear of radiation due to ignorance and this type of misinformation.

      • Sarah H. says

        Thank you Kevin. The type of radiation to which one is exposed is a critical factor in this.
        Salt is radioactive.
        Salt substitute is radioactive.
        Bananas are radioactive.
        There is radiation when you fly.

        However, all radiation is NOT created equal. The thyroid gland requires iodine to function properly. Iodine -131 is readily absorbed into the tissues of the thyroid and this is why persons, in areas where there has been a release of this isotope, are given rather large doses of iodine in order to saturate their thyroid and minimize the chance of their absorbing this harmful form of iodine. Those with iodine deficiency inn such an case, would be at great risk for uptake of the Iodine -131 and at substantially elevated risk for thyroid cancer (as evidenced by the increase in thyroid cancer post Fukashima.)

        And that, due to its very brief half life of 8.02 day, is the LEAST harmful of radiation we are dealing with from the reactor.

        Cesium-137, strontium-90, and plutonium-239 may be the most significant among these due to their persistence and there will be no relief from their effects in your life time.

        Strontium is readily absorbed by the bone as it is biologically similar to calcium in uptake and may even replace it. What does this mean for us? How fun does leukemia sound? Well that is what we will be seeing–a dramatic rise in the incidence of bone cancers for the foreseeable future.

        If you are worried only about the fish, then you have been ill informed and here is a cold slap in the face for you. The airborne plume from Fukashima has covered the ENTIRE northern hemisphere. The Southern hemisphere was protected from contamination ONLY because of the winds of ITCZ (intertropical convergence zone) which precluded extensive mixing.

        It is not just the fish. It is also our air, surface water, both fresh and salt, our ground water, and our soil. Plants absorb this radiation and incorporate it into their leaves and fruits. Animals (ourselves included) eat the radioactive plants and bio-magnify it (meaning it accumulates and persists in our tissues and we, too become radioactive.

        Solution: Either move to the southern hemisphere to reduce your exposure (as if you are here it is a little bit late now to hope you have not ingested / inhaled the “gifts of Fukashima”)
        …or stop eating, drinking and breathing for the next 600 (six-hundred) years or so.

        Bottom line —

        The time to worry about radioactive pollution was yesterday. It is a fact of life now for those of us who have no choice but to live in the northern hemisphere. If you are like most human beings, you must eat and drink to stay alive. You are going to ingest radioactive particles. Keep your exposure as low as you can to reduce the number of bullets in the revolver we are all playing Russian Roulette with against our will. But don’t think for a moment you are not already a participant in this.

        We have, all of us, already been poisoned. Many of us will–eventually–succumb and develop cancers. Some of us will die from them, some of us won’t. 100% of us will die though because…life is fatal. So what the hell. Eat your radioactive salmon with a side of radioactive spinach salad.

        I am a nameless nobody on the internet. I can tell you I am a biologist, but you don’t know if that is true or not. So let me point you all in the direction of a fine lady. Nobel Peace Prize winner Helen Caldicott M.D. taught medicine at Harvard University. The Smithsonian Institution named Dr. Caldicott as one of the most influential women of the 20th century. She is very informed and highly outspoken with regard to the subject of nuclear radiation. Look her up, listen to her speaking about Fukashima and I think you will find she agrees with what I’ve said.

        “Nuclear power is a hell of a way to boil water.”
        — Albert Einstein

        http://www.helencaldicott.com/

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSIKF29t8pM

        http://www.linktv.org/video/6986/dr-helen-caldicott-on-fukushima-and-the-perils-of-nuclear-power

        • Teeko Turner says

          Very well said. 99% of humans are clueless to what Fukushima and the rest of the Nuke Devils have imploded upon us.

      • says

        Re: Radiation Buildup will lead to cancer. Apparently, nobody know this, and so “they” keep after women to get their yearly mammograms. So after 5 or 10 years, they discover (DUH) … cancer!! Golly, gosh.

        In my 75 years, I have never gotten a mammogram, nor do I ever plan to get one, thank you.

        • Silly People says

          This is terrible advice.

          I didn’t get mammograms, I don’t have cancer. Some people who get mammograms get cancer. Therefore, mammograms must be at fault for the cancer.

          This is a fallacious argument. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

          • Elisa says

            Latin is a dead language. You can just say “because of this, this other thing happens” is a fallacious argument. I agree, but I don’t get mammograms either, nor have I ever had any form of cancer. I avoid doctors and I think everyone should except for emergencies. No vaccines, no mammograms, no ob/gyn check ups – nothing. My mother is 87 and never had an Ob/Gyn check up nor mammogram either. Interesting even if “fallacious” in argument.

            • ashley says

              you got me at “no vaccines”.

              look, you can believe whatever you want, but you are a public health risk. diseases are eradicated by herd immunity caused by vaccination – once the vaccination level goes too low, we lose herd immunity.

              some people can’t (for health reasons – allergic/too frail/too young) get vaccinated even though they want to, and people like you are ignorantly putting them at risk of coming down with an “eradicated” disease.

              mumps, measles, and rubella are on the rise ever since the (NOW DISCREDITED) study linking the MMR vaccine to autism came out.

              im a skeptical person myself (hence how i ended up on this site in the first place – was very skeptical of the alarmist paranoid drivel my friend was spewing about fish from the pacific), but it is selfish to let your unfounded skepticism harm the public.

              • gh says

                Rubbish.
                I wish I’d never had any vaccines. Encephalomyelitis from a polio vaccine has stuffed my life up. I’ve had several relatives who’ve had seizures from vaccines with some lasting ill effects,
                Not everyone who gets vaccinated gets antibodies. Most carriers of disease have been vaccinated.
                The Wakefield study was not discredited – it was just a witch hunt and has been shown to be so. Other studies have replicated the results.
                Some vaccines just plain shouldn’t exist – the flu vaccine for example. Only people with seriously compromised health (usually compromised by pharmaceuticals) are at risk, and there are far better ways to reduce that risk. There is a case to be made for some vaccines, but the harm they have caused should not be ignored. Mutated strains such as the one caused by the pertussis vaccine that have resulted in about ten times the number of whooping cough cases.
                Simian viruses such as SV40 (cancer anyone?) introduced into the human population. And so on…

                • FrancesH says

                  Nicely summarized about the vaccine b.s.! I was never the same after I had a tetanus/diptheria vaccine. 2 months of fever and malaise; missed weeks of work, but the dr said no, couldn’t be from the vaccine.

                  A month later, I met another who came down with the same symptoms… after receiving tetanus/diptheria shot at a different dr. Her doctor also refused to report the symptoms back to the manufacturer…. Why not? Because those symptoms hadn’t been reported before….. yes, and this is the kind of logic in place. Can’t be a symptom from this (possibly contaminated) batch, because they weren’t reported before.. hence, why vaccines and the side effects on the reports can’t be trusted. Doctors brainwashed that their almighty pharmaceuticals are perfect and don’t cause problems.

                  Was told years later, probably was diptheria symptoms. Eventually, I became mercury poisoned from eating fish and amalgams, both of which our gov’t approves and says is safe… and this was PRE-Fukishima. Have never recovered from all the damage it has done to mitochondria, my digestive system and my heart.

                  So, yes, go ahead and eat all the fish you want, but remember AFTER you find out you are mercury poisoned, you’ll find out how hard it is to find a doctor who even knows HOW to test you properly (NOT a blood test, because mercury quickly moves into fatty organs), let alone treat you without releasing mercury back into your body to be re-absorbed into your brain.

    • eric says

      Be careful. Its different kinds of radiation….not to mention its concentrated into small particles. One particle, if ingested, can begin mutating your cells on an atomic level. Only on cell needs to become malignant to start cancer. And the gestation period is 3-5 years. Be warned.

    • irene says

      What is your expertise, Do you have a degree in Radiation Physics? There was a total meltdown of 2 reactors and the spent fuel rods melted into the sea and a year and a half later there is still radioactive water pouring into the pacific and the third reactor is about ready to melt down just like the first two. This is an ongoing ecological catastrophe of global proportions. To save an industry people are going to lie that the fish is safe. all the starfish are dissolving in the coast off California. the radiation half-life of cesium is over 25 years .
      This is the worst catastrophe mankind has ever seen and some say it could eventually wipe out the whole northern hemisphere but our “scientists” are arguing about global warming.
      The world needs to wake up and find brilliant minds and all the resources necessary to mitigate the effects that we all will feel. No bunker is going to be safe.

      Remember the mayor in Jaws – walking the beach after the shark attack saying the water is safe- yeah right politicians and official know what they are talking about.

        • Elizabeth says

          That snopes piece was simply shedding light on a map that was circulating at the time.

          It’s not the appropriate material to debunk what she wrote.

        • Dave says

          Au contraire Elizabeth. She probably gets her info from blogs judging by the content. Most if not all blogs are fearmonger bullshit. The Snopes piece was just shedding light on that fact. She need not worry so much as the info she has is incorrect.

        • Bovey says

          snopes in not infallible. They have no more access to information that any other couple hiding in their basement doing the same thing.

        • Hans says

          “The Pacific Ocean is an enormous place,” said Norman, who found radiation from the Fukushima nuclear power in California rainwater, milk and plants soon after the earthquake and tsunami. “There’s a lot of material between us and Japan. No matter what happens in Fukushima, it’s not going to be a problem over here.”

          …. Do I even need to point out how stupid this is? Your site lost all credibility.

          • Maria says

            I agree,

            I just read worldWIDE Fish are dying by the millions

            The concern is not just radiation it’s also MERCURY, bromide and you keep naming it

      • spen says

        Come on now. Wipe out the whole northern hemisphere. If it really were that dangerous, you’d think the government would already be working on this alot more. X-ray is more harmful. No one cares about the radiation. I live in Japan, and eat fish caught off the coast of Japan all the time. I am fine. My insides are not dissolving and I’m still alive. Get a grip and stop buying in to all the conspiracy theories and destruction of the world theories. This will be over soon, and then you will all find something else to worry about. As of now, there is no evidence of anyone or anything being harmed from the levels of radiation.

        • Government says

          Frankly, I don’t really care how long you’ll live, Spen. In fact, if you die young, it’s one less pension to pay…. Better yet, if in process you get sick and need a very expensive medical treatment, oh well…. long live our wonderful pharmaceutical industry! After all, they’re in the driver’s seat – didn’t you know?

        • says

          Spen the Post is tellling me that you are in complete denial of your self and everyone elses actions. Its not a car crash scene, its contamination and fallout that will spread and accumilate for 100 to 1000’s of years, its ongoing and their is no Stop Watch or any conceivable scientist that can play the act of God.

    • barry says

      so you have heard the waters and air are safe … if 1 rod from the waist pool in reactor building 4 were to come in contact with air … there could be a fire and /or explosion and radiation enough to cover North America … and the people in charge have been lying since day one … yes! you eat the fish … its only been three years ….

    • k says

      That is a lie, period. Potassium 40 (which is in a banana) is NATURALLY OCCURRING radiation. The crap coming out of Fuku and in the pacific is man-made. Naturally occurring radiation,like from rocks, bananas, the sun are ‘homeostasis’ – meaning your body off-gasses what it doesn’t need. The crap in the ocean, if you get one atom of it in you, your body attacks and creates a tumor. Quit using that banana lie, that shows your ignorance and is insulting.

Join the Conversation

Current ye@r *