I received several questions about whether my recommendations for fish consumption (one pound of cold-water, fatty fish per week) had 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. 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!
Better supplementation. Fewer supplements.
Close the nutrient gap to feel and perform your best.
A daily stack of supplements designed to meet your most critical needs.
More and more info keeps coming out and Chris Kresser is still not interested in owning up to it.
http://www.naturalnews.com/043531_radioactive_fish_Fukushima_radiation_contamination.html
Chris, take some time off from selling your new book and get back to the topics that really matter! NO ONE SHOULD BE EATING SEAFOOD FROM THE PACIFIC!!!
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.
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.
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?
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.?
Yikes! I just found this report about high levels of Thallium and Arsenic released in CA. Our arsenic levels were also higher 🙁
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2014/fracking-10-06-2014.html
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.
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; 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.
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
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).
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.
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!!!
‘TEPCO withheld Fukushima radioactive water measurements for 6 months’ (Asahi Shimbun Jan 9th 2014):
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201401090060
Ask Tepco: ‘Nothing to see here, folks. Everythings just fine! Have a nice day!
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
sorry for the typos.. I should have proof read 🙂
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.”
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.
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
“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
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.
With regard to power lines; exhaustive scientific studies have been done; and there are no known health risks due to power lines. From the Health Physics Society:
http://hps.org/hpspublications/articles/powerlines.html
“In conclusion, there are no known health risks that have been conclusively demonstrated to be caused by living near high-voltage power lines.”
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????
Silas, people are not going to be convinced by a website with a Christian agenda.
Also, truth is a very vague word.
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.
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.
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’.
Perfect, now we know not to listen to you either Paul!
Paul points out what most people are not willing to consider. Perhaps the bigger picture makes people too uncomfortable.
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.
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?
Common sense is not “panic mode”. This would be the precautionary principle in action.
Reading back and forth from both sides, including science journals, etc., it’s these few links here overall that make me feel uncomfortable:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/09/04/fukushima-radiation.aspx
http://fairewinds.org/media/in-the-news/fish-data-belie-japans-claims-fukushima
http://fukushimaupdate.com/what-is-the-actual-risk-for-pacific-coast-residents-from-fukushima-radiation/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/fake-science-alert-fukushima-radiation-cant-be-compared-to-bananas-or-x-rays/5329369
http://www.globalresearch.ca/meta-review-of-46-studies-even-the-lowest-level-radiation-is-damaging-to-human-health/5312306
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
Instead of going to websites devoid of scientific expertise; readers interested in the radiation from cell phones should visit:
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/cellphoneqa.html
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’).
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.
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?’
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
Thanks for pointing out your personal observation. It seems way too many people have their heads in the sand.
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.
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?
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 !
John, you wrote, “…are going to show a sharp decline in cancer these next 5 years…” You meant “increase”, not “decline”, didn’t you?
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!!!
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.
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.
here you go chirs, something peer-reviewed to make it all make sense in your world. Now it’s time to own up and admit your mistake and re-educate your readers to the dangers of pacific seafood due to fukushima.
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/study-fukushima-radiation-has-already-killed-14000-americans
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.
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?
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.