The Student News Site of San Francisco State University

Golden Gate Xpress

The Student News Site of San Francisco State University

Golden Gate Xpress

The Student News Site of San Francisco State University

Golden Gate Xpress

Don’t eat the fish! They’re contaminated

Polar bears along the coast of Alaska are suffering from fur loss and open sores. Starfish on the West Coast are disintegrating into piles of white goo and Pacific Herring are bleeding from their gills and eyes.

Despite this knowledge, the government refuses to announce how much radiation is infecting our atmosphere. It should be obligatory that this information is released regardless of the dosage present; because the list goes on.

The population of sockeye salmon from Alaska is at a historic low, thousands of birds are dropping dead in Oregon and sea lions along the California coast are experiencing an unusual mortality rate, according to Peak Oil.

All this horrible death and disease to our marine animals can be indirectly linked to the explosion of the Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant. When the 9.0 magnitude Tōhoku earthquake hit northern Japan in March 2011, it caused a tsunami that destroyed the power plant, which oozed toxic radiation throughout the country and into the Pacific Ocean.

Thanks to the currents circulating the northern Pacific Ocean and the planet’s placement of continents, the West Coast of the United States, Alaska and Mexico were directly affected and continue to suffer three years later.

So why is seafood still being sold and encouraged to eat three times a week? Here’s a hint: it’s not so that we get our fulfillment of omega-3 fatty acids.

We live in a greedy country that cares more about money than its people. If fish were to be taken off the market, not only would it cause mayhem in the entire United States, it would be an immense profit loss.

The sales of fishing licenses, stamps, tags and permits generate $25 billion a year in federal, state and local taxes, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

In 2012, the U.S. imported approximately $17 billion in edible fishery products and exported $5 billion, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

It is apparent why the government has not put a red flag on the sale of seafood in our country, but it does not mean that it is a safe product to keep consuming.

According to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, a dose of radiation less than 10 millisieverts (mSv) has no direct evidence of effects on human health. A dose of 10-10,00 mSv creates an increased risk of cancers such as lung, skin and breast cancer.

The government has not released a specific number as to the amount of radiation in our ocean and air, but claims, “we don’t really need to do that because we’re predicting very low levels.”

It is deceiving that we are not being informed how much radiation from Fukushima we are actually living in, especially because a “low level” is still considered toxic.

Prolonged exposure to a low dose of radiation can damage cells over time that when repairing itself, errors are made. This can lead to cancer even after years or decades have passed, according to the World Health Organization.

If U.S. consumers are safe to eat seafood from the Pacific Ocean, then why are we not specifically being informed on the level of radiation present? Why are thousands of marine animals dying and developing disease at the same time?

The radiation leaking from Japan still poses a threat to the West Coast and the Pacific Ocean. There are traces in our fish and that is the seafood we are buying and ingesting into our body.

A word of advice for diehard seafood eaters: consume what is caught from the East Coast. There’s a better chance it is not contaminated.

View Comments (229)
More to Discover

Comments (229)

Comments are Closed.
All Golden Gate Xpress Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest
  • B

    BrianMay 14, 2016 at 11:42 pm

    Something is causing the massive pacific dies off, that just happen to be coincidence with the fukushima radiation ocean plume.

    I’m not eating fish till thee die offs stop.

    search marine life concentrates isotopes

    or you can believe the billion dollar nuclear power pr and influence folks.

  • B

    BrianApr 4, 2016 at 12:44 am bio accumulation in oceans: millions of times. Don’t worry, lead, tobacco and radiation are all good for ya.

  • S

    SparafucileMar 19, 2016 at 6:26 pm

    There’s a reason this is in the “opinion” section.

    It’s idiocy, not fact.

  • B

    Brian DonovanOct 20, 2015 at 8:40 pm

    Massive die of, large than ever recorded in history, right around the same time the main ocean carried plume of radiation nears the west coasts of the Americas.

    Defending the dumping of deadly radiation int the ecosystems is a crime against humanity.

    Just as the main part of the ocean carried plume of radiation from Fukushima arrives on the west coast of the Americas, we get completely unprecedented massive dies off largest than any in recorded history.


    The isotope from reactors are not natural and are concentrated in the food chain tens of thousands of times.

    Particulate alpha radioactive isotopes are also not natural and are a 100% promise of cancer if lodged internally. all the dogs tested got cancer in studies.

    The nuclear industry spends billion of dollar on pr and influence per year. They MUST convince the public radiation is harmless. How do you think they go about spending those billions to do that?
    1-2% of cancer that nuclear industry workers get are from
    radiation, proving LNT.
    EPA radionuclide exposure coefficients. All radiation is different
    and routes of exposure matter.

    • S

      SparafucileMar 19, 2016 at 6:27 pm

      Donovan – you imbecile — don’t you ever get tired of promoting the same easily-debunked gibberish?

      • B

        BrianMar 19, 2016 at 7:17 pm

        “you imbecile — don’t you ever get tired of promoting the same easily-debunked gibberish?”

        Really folks, this is what I have to put up with.

        • S

          SparafucileMar 19, 2016 at 7:19 pm

          When you promulgate such idiocy, you deserve it — especially after you’ve had actual data presented to you over and over and over again, to refute your nonsensical speculation and junk science.

          • B

            BrianMar 19, 2016 at 7:23 pm

            “When you promulgate such idiocy, you deserve it — especially after you’ve had actual data presented to you over and over and over again, to refute your nonsensical speculation and junk science.”


          • S

            SparafucileMar 19, 2016 at 7:50 pm


          • B

            BrianMar 19, 2016 at 10:06 pm

            Notice an entire sequence from spara with zero data.

  • B

    Brian DonovanOct 2, 2015 at 12:33 am

    Whatever is killing the ocean life, I’m not going to eat fish for awhile.

    Its a heck of a coincidence that just as the primary plume of radiation from Fukushima was scheduled to hit, we get massive unprecedented die offs and mutations.

    In epidemiology, this is called evidence.

    Notice how the officials dismiss LNT. Linear no threshold.

    “a dose of radiation less than 10 millisieverts (mSv) has no direct evidence of effects on human health.”

    You can’t measure it with epidemiology because the resolution of epidemiological studies is around 1%.

    I suppose it’s another coincidence that the regulators threshold of harm for nuclear radiation just happen to be right around the level too low for epidemiological studies to prove. Lawyers love this stuff.

    LNT has been proven from since cells and single radiation tracks, to huge cohort studies.
    1-2% of cancer that nuclear industry workers get are from
    radiation, proving LNT.
    EPA radionuclide exposure coefficients. All radiation is different
    and routes of exposure matter.
    UCS analysis, 200k

    at this photo of a single 1 micron particle of plutonium in animal
    lung tissue, and then understand that the official lie is that dose,
    those tracks should be be divided by the whole lung or even the whole
    body to give the risk of cancer. Cancers start small, not in whole
    organ, but in small clusters of cells, individual cells. photo of alpha
    from plutonium particle. 100,000 times as carcinogenic.

    That is clustered damage from radiation is much worse than distributed.

    1-2% of cancers are from commercial power plant radiation releases.
    Just what LNT predicts.
    “Ninety per cent of workers received cumulative doses < 50 mSv

    All radiation increases your
    cancer risks.”

    "These data provide direct evidence that a single a particle traversing a nucleus will have a high probability of resulting in a mutation and highlight the need for radiation protection at low doses."

  • B

    Brian DonovanSep 10, 2015 at 5:35 pm

    Germany is the only country to meet their CO2 reduction goals.

    Fancy that.

    Germany also has the most reliable grid on earth, and very low wholesale prices.

    Germany is a net exporter of electricity.

    Germany has coal, because private companies wanted it, and the gov caved, It’s not part of the plan and was not needed. even so: CO2 down.

    Yet some people will insist Germany is a great failure.

    They want us to go nuclear, with only 10 years before the shortages begin, and that’s with only 2% of the world’s energy demand. Nuclear is also 4 times the cost before gov breaks, as solar and wind.

    • F

      Frank EnergySep 10, 2015 at 9:39 pm

      Ya classic lie of the nuke cartel….if you are against nuke, you are pro coal, and pro oil

    • T

      TimSSep 11, 2015 at 8:00 am

      “Germany’s Green Energy Destabilizing Electric Grids.”
      “The intermittent power is causing destabilization of the electric grids causing potential blackouts, weakening voltage and causing damage to industrial equipment.”

      “Germany’s neighbors are finding their own grids strained by intermittent solar and wind production”

      “When the grid says ‘no’ to wind and solar power, this company’s technology helps it say ‘yes’ again”

    • B

      Brian DonovanSep 11, 2015 at 9:50 am

      Because Germany is a net exporter, some neighboring country try to buy more energy than THEIR grids can handle. Let’s blame Germany for that.

      • S

        SparafucileMar 19, 2016 at 6:28 pm

        Citing your own blog as a “source”, liar?

        • B

          BrianMar 19, 2016 at 7:15 pm

          I like CleanTechnica, but Bob Wallace banned me. Bob is a supercilious jerk..

          • S

            SparafucileMar 19, 2016 at 7:20 pm

            Birds of a feather, peck at each other?

          • B

            BrianMar 19, 2016 at 7:23 pm

            Folks, I have shown that the above commenter is not serious, to say the least.

    • T

      TimSSep 12, 2015 at 5:32 am

      “Germany .. An Energy Crisis”
      “For years, the government has subsidized solar and wind energy through energy taxes that have dramatically jacked up electricity rates.”
      “But Germany’s green energy revolution is costing German residents dearly. Retail electricity rates have more than doubled in the last decade due to ever-growing taxes to support green energy use.”
      “Consumer energy bills have gotten to the point where electricity in the country has been called a “luxury good” by major media outlets.”

      “the electricity bill of the typical German consumer has doubled.”
      “low-income families all over Europe have had to foot the skyrocketing electric bills. Many can no longer afford to pay, so the utilities are cutting
      off their power. The German Association of Energy Consumers estimates that up to 800,000 Germans have had their power cut off because they
      were unable to pay the country’s rising electricity bills.”

    • S

      SparafucileMar 19, 2016 at 6:27 pm

      ^ Liar ^

      • B

        BrianMar 19, 2016 at 7:17 pm

        Look folks, Self labeled comments!

  • T

    TimSAug 27, 2015 at 1:50 pm

    wind/solar backed by fossil fuels to compensate intermittency.
    “Germany, for instance, has tried to replace nuclear by wind and solar,
    and failed. They had to build additional coal-fired power stations to
    keep the lights on in periods without wind or sunshine.”
    “the erratic nature of wind has to be compensated “real-time” by fossil-fuel power stations operating in back-up mode, consuming more fuel than they would otherwise.”
    “As a result, Germany’s use of fossil fuels has increased.”
    “Intermittent energy causes more fossil fuels to be burnt”

  • F

    Frank EnergyAug 27, 2015 at 11:22 am

    solar at 3 cents per kWH, why are we even considering dirty dangerous and expensive nuclear?

    Solar PV data is here

  • B

    Brian DonovanAug 25, 2015 at 5:28 pm

    Yes they almost certainly are. This was when the Fukushima radiation was supposed to hit, and we are having an unprecedented die off. I would not touch the water. There is something wrong.

    did you know a typhoon is hitting the first Japanese reactor to restart? nope? the media won’t touch it.

    EENEWS has.

    Did you know all radiation deaths are caused by the fear induced by telling people the truth? Yup, that’s what the pro nuclear folks say.

    These guys are total quacks, they don’t even work for the nuclear industry!

    they say there are 200k deaths from Chernobyl and similar for fukushima.

    doctors and engineers what do they know.

    It’s not like radidative materials are concntrated 1`000’s of times in the food chain or internally absorbed radiatiacte particels were like a million times more canriangenic, right? 100,000 times as carcinogenic. list of radiation from fuku landing all over the world, but don’t worry, it’s ok.

    • T

      TimSAug 26, 2015 at 11:56 am

      Scaremonger misinformations based on fictional data, trillions cancer deaths.
      Scaremongers incite irrational fear on population, suicides and abortions; they provoke more deaths than radiation.

    • F

      Frank EnergySep 10, 2015 at 2:53 pm

      I reported the troll, getting sick of it’s capping attack.

      • F

        Frank EnergySep 10, 2015 at 2:53 pm

        I mean tims BTW

      • M

        Michael MannSep 10, 2015 at 3:12 pm

        You reported Brian, I thought he was a cohort of yours?

  • T

    TimSAug 25, 2015 at 10:52 am

    Characterless fear-mongers have killed much more than radiation by raising irrational fear on populations with exaggerated claims.
    “Life expectancy of the evacuees dropped from 65 to 58 years — not [predominately] because of cancer, but because of depression, alcoholism and suicide.”
    “excess number of abortions”
    “radiation .. so low that almost no increased risk of birth defects was expected”
    “panic and false rumors”
    “doctors noticed a rise in the numbers of abortions in some European countries .. the total number of terminations at more than 100,000. Anxiety levels and rates of psychosomatic illnesses also soared.”
    “claims are highly exaggerated”

    Unfortunately, unscrupulous fear-mongers and green lobby overexaggerate by trillion times, causing irrational panic, abortions and suicides, on misinformed populations.
    Scaremongers and sensationalist mass media provoke more deaths than radiation.

  • F

    Frank EnergyAug 25, 2015 at 9:40 am

    Record-breaking typhoon to make direct hit on Japan’s only restarted
    nuclear plant — 159 mph gust last night, strongest ever measured at
    location — Waves near 40 ft. high expected around island — Gov’t alerts
    for landslides and floods — Cracks and leaks already found at nuclear
    plant (VIDEO & MAP)

  • F

    Frank EnergyAug 24, 2015 at 10:15 am

    “Horrific environmental mystery… Everyone’s freaked out”: 1,500%
    normal death rate in whales off West Coast — Gov’t declares
    unprecedented Unusual Mortality Event — Scientists alarmed, ‘no idea’
    what’s happening — Expert: “It’s all going to cascade up to us” — Other
    die-offs being reported (VIDEOS)

    • T

      TimSAug 24, 2015 at 11:41 am

      enenews scaremonger headlines

      Take care! Godzilla is waking up to kill all of us, no safe place on the earth.

  • T

    TimSAug 24, 2015 at 8:09 am

    If radiation is a concern, then be careful of renewables using rare-earth metals with traces of radioactive uranium and thorium; wind/solar farms occupy acres and acres spreading radiation to everywhere possibly contaminating soils and foods. Be cautious radiophobics.

  • F

    Frank EnergyAug 24, 2015 at 7:22 am

    In terms of “trusting the nuke industry” I think having zero level of trust makes perfect sense.

    They are challenged by economics. They can’t afford to shut down their old plants because that is too expensive. So they keep having emergencies, reactor scrams, when small things happen.

    The nuke industry always tells us that they have “defense in depth” but when reality hits we find out these defenses are far weaker than we have been led to believe.

    FOR Instance Pilgrim Nuke in Boston, has an ever increasing string of problems and emergencies. In Jan 2015 they were one step away, one hail Mary away from releasing a massive blast of radiation direct from the reactor vessel. They had multiple failures, things that had failed just a year earlier and were not properly fixed and tested.

    Last Saturday, Pilgrim shut down again. Was the problem some hack attempt, Stuxnet type virus, major crack, giant earthquake, massive human error?

    No the problem was a 1/2″ copper tube

    I see, so a 1/2 copper tube, similar to what you can buy at Home depot, can shut down an entire nuclear plant?

    I see, that must be what they refer to as “defense in depth”

    copper tube about a half-inch in diameter, called an air/nitrogen line,
    broke, triggering the valve closure, said Chip Perkins, a nuclear
    engineer and the regulatory assurance manager for Entergy. While the
    repair of the line shouldn’t be that complicated, the plant will do an
    investigation into what they call “extended circumstances,” followed by
    other independent investigations.
    This is the 3rd emergency shutdown since Jan 1 of 2015 at Pilgrim.

    • M

      Michael MannAug 24, 2015 at 7:38 am

      Yes, exactly, there are thousands of things which, if they fail can shutdown an entire nuclear power plant,.everything must be working right to stay up and operating. I’m glad you finally understand why they operate so safely! If any of those things are not right it shuts down, because safety is always the top priority. It is much harder to keep a plant operating than it is to shut it down, the reactor protection system monitors many parameters and if they sense something wrong, or if they lose power. they will cause an automatic shutdown,

  • T

    TimSAug 24, 2015 at 6:14 am

    Scaremongers and sensationalist mass media are more harmful to public health than radioactivity.
    “no substantial increase in future cancer rates is expected as a result of radiation.”
    “No-one has died as a result of radiation exposure in Fukushima”

  • F

    Frank EnergyAug 23, 2015 at 6:47 pm

    This shows how Alaska was literally blasted with radiation

    stock here: below is an “article” a review of one of my
    comments, and done by some guys that were purportedly involved in just
    recently reassuring California that all was safe. My comments are
    highlighted in yellow, after the fact, to express my opinion.
    The bottom line….Fukushima had the same impact from 2000 miles away, that a large
    nuclear bomb would have going off at ground zero. Read
    it, hard to believe, but true. They did in fact have three large
    nuclear bombs go off here, so the comparison is easy, and unusual in the
    ability to make the comparison. Sheesh, bombs just have like 16
    pounds of uranium and plutonium. Fukushima had over 200,000 lbs.

    • M

      Michael MannAug 23, 2015 at 7:05 pm

      Frank Energy / NukePro / PacE / steveo77 You have got to be kidding, another crackpot on your personal website? There is no truth in that statement, but the fear from someone naive enough to believe you could cause serious negative health effects.

      • F

        Frank EnergyAug 23, 2015 at 7:14 pm

        Uh no Mikey, this is US government test data. You have been reported for capping and adding no value

        • M

          Michael MannAug 23, 2015 at 7:24 pm

          Good luck with that, multiple logins, multiple aliases, profanity, sending people repeatedly to your personal website and you claim to report me? Seriously?

          • F

            Frank EnergyAug 23, 2015 at 7:30 pm

            Pimp for nuke…special place in hell for you. And your plant Ginna, was found guilty of $220M of defrauding the ratepayer through rate fixing.

            Nukist “Please have some decorum as we kill your children……”

          • M

            Michael MannAug 23, 2015 at 7:46 pm

            If anyone was reading this article from January 1014 they would, get a good indication of your grasp of reality or lack there of… let’s see
            Calling people names… check
            fear mongering….check
            accusing someone of murder… check
            telling people personal identifiable information…check
            using profanity…check
            Yup, they would have a good idea about who Frank Energy / PacE / NukePro / steveo77 really is, not you name, but your lack of integrity, class or any real concern for people or the environment.

          • F

            Frank EnergyAug 23, 2015 at 7:51 pm

            Wow, I guess the pimp got to have the last word….go ahead Mikey (calling you a name, lol)

          • B

            Brian DonovanAug 25, 2015 at 8:25 pm

            Look in the mirror. you and tims have done all of that.

    • T

      TimSAug 24, 2015 at 6:16 am

      Do you believe in your own fibs?

  • F

    Frank EnergyAug 23, 2015 at 2:30 pm

    You can see the paid propaganda operation of the nuke cartel below.

    • M

      Michael MannAug 23, 2015 at 3:19 pm

      Frank Energy aka NukePro aka steveo77 aka PacE has the audacity to call David McFarland, who is serving his country as a nuclear professional in the US Navy of being some sort of paid propaganda pusher. He caps this off with the invention of some conspiracy nonsense about a none existent “nuclear cartel” at least you can still see Frank Energy’s posts, unlike his other aliases.

      • F

        Frank EnergyAug 23, 2015 at 3:34 pm

        David made the outrageous assertion that Beta radiation is blocked by skin, and then he stuck with the argument even after I set him straight.

        He also says that bananas are more dangerous than nuclear.

        He is a pimp paid by the nuclear industry.

        • M

          Michael MannAug 23, 2015 at 3:53 pm

          He is a Navy sailor, paid by you to put his life on the line to allow you the freedom to say such stupid things….Beta radiation is considered a “skin dose” not a “whole body dose” that is true, but maybe he mis-spoke once, that doesn’t make him anything like you….

          • F

            Frank EnergyAug 23, 2015 at 4:04 pm

            eff you troll

          • G

            greenthinker2012Aug 23, 2015 at 4:37 pm

            Now you are showing your true colors Frank, Steve, StevO, Pace, NukePro, etc etc.
            Interesting to compare an honorable man like David, who stands for his beliefs and you who hides behind multiple aliases and posts falsified documents on your crappy personal website.
            The comparison is truly astonishing.

          • F

            Frank EnergyAug 23, 2015 at 5:57 pm

            eff you and your ilk, your merry kumbaya band of nuke circle jerks. Being military does not make one honorable, especially when they don’t even know the basics of alpha or beta radiation, and trot out the banana lie probably without even knowing it is a lie. capiche?

          • G

            greenthinker2012Aug 23, 2015 at 9:22 pm

            What I capiche is that you pretend to be a “pro” but when it is revealed
            your arguments hold no water you act like a baby.
            Wahh Wahh Frank, Steve, Pace, Nukepro whoever you are pretending to be.
            I am glad people get to see you for what you are.

    • T

      TimSAug 23, 2015 at 3:26 pm

      Still spreading your anti-science (based on myths, beliefs, fictional data). Lamentable.
      Who is paying you for that? the green mafia?

      By the way, I’m not paid for supporting nuclear power; I support it because statistically it causes less environmental impact per terawatt-hour than renewables. Green lobbyists are hypocritical, wind and solar requires large lands and offshore areas in wildlife’s habitats, butchering millions birds and bats, destroying natural landscapes.

      • F

        Frank EnergyAug 23, 2015 at 3:35 pm


      • M

        Michael MannAug 23, 2015 at 3:40 pm

        Frank Energy is NukePro is PacE, a solar installer in Hawaii. He works directly for the solar industry….Everything he accuses pro-nuclear people of being, he actually is for the solar industry, he assumes everyone’s motivation is the same as his….

        • F

          Frank EnergyAug 23, 2015 at 6:41 pm

          I am retired Mikey….get your facts straight.

  • F

    Frank EnergyAug 23, 2015 at 10:57 am

    Woods Whore Institute has been issued grant monies from the government to promote the idea that “radiation is everywhere and its normal” so that the dying nuclear industry can extract more profits from humanity, and be allowed to operate even more sloppy than then have already.

    He made a a website called “Our Radioactive Ocean” in which the lies and slant are obvious to the non casual observer.

    this is what we are up against….paid pimps using our money to lie to us.

    • M

      Michael MannAug 23, 2015 at 12:34 pm

      Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is an advocate for the oceans, neither pro or anti-nuclear, just the leading marine scientist organization in the world, whose scientists have been monitoring the oceans for a very long time. The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is a private, nonprofit research and higher education facility dedicated to the study of all aspects of marine science and engineering and to the education of marine researchers. Your twisted perception shows your bias, not the bias of the scientists.

    • G

      greenthinker2012Aug 23, 2015 at 4:44 pm

      Frank Energy, nukepro, Steve SteveO Pace whoever else he is pretending to be doesn’t believe what government funded scientists say. He also doesn’t believe what industry funded scientists say. However he WILL believe statements from crackpot conspiracy websites as long as they confirm his beliefs. Oh…and he runs a crackpot conspiracy website where you can read falsified documents he uses to make his arguments seem believable.
      this is what we are up against…

      • F

        Frank EnergyAug 23, 2015 at 5:54 pm

        LOL if there are any innocent bystanders out there….I think greenies comment is all you need to know to understand how the nuclear cartel tries to take over public forums.

        • M

          Michael MannAug 23, 2015 at 6:04 pm

          Yes, I doubt any anti-nuclear activists would want you as their representative, let alone anyone remotely objective. Thank you, your example shows just how hard core anti-nuclear people think.

        • G

          greenthinker2012Aug 23, 2015 at 9:23 pm

          It is you who swamps these comment threads with your multiple aliases.
          Just be honest and tell us all the aliases you post under.

  • F

    Frank EnergyAug 23, 2015 at 10:45 am

    I wouldn’t be as concerned about eating a few fish, as I am about the prevalent mass species die offs, especially in the Pacific. When there are no fish left to eat, the problem of eating fish will go away, lol, sarc, ouch

    • M

      Michael MannAug 23, 2015 at 10:51 am

      Still trying to get people to click on your personal website? Do you really think vague unsupported scary claims and multiple aliases will trick people in going to your site? Frank Energy=NukePro=PacE=steveo77

      • F

        Frank EnergyAug 23, 2015 at 10:55 am

        Do you ever add value? the answer is no.

        • M

          Michael MannAug 23, 2015 at 12:53 pm

          Keeping you from deceiving people adds value!

          • F

            Frank EnergyAug 23, 2015 at 2:03 pm

            Truth benefits the recipient.

            Ya der eh, dat nuclear clean and green, sounds like a pimp job to me

          • M

            Michael MannAug 23, 2015 at 2:22 pm

            So, what does deception get you? Frank Energy or is it steveo77 or is it NukPro or is it DacE or is it some other name. I find it easier to just speak the truth, no games, no deception. Yes, it does feel good to tell the truth, you should try it sometime.

  • M

    Michael MannAug 22, 2015 at 10:57 am

    This article is ridiculous, “radiation is infecting our atmosphere” radiation doesn’t “infect” anything it is not a biologic, it doesn’t work like a disease contagion. The amount of radiation being released to the Pacific is much much less than what has been in the ocean forever. If you are concerned, learn more from real experts like those at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

  • P

    PacEAug 21, 2015 at 8:38 am

    Regardless of quibbling over 2.5 cent or 3 cents for wind, Vogtle Nuclear 3 and 4 will cost 15 cents per kHW neglecting transmission, overhead and profit, long term waste storage, and accidents.

    Using actual Vogtle data, the calculations are here, and the Vogtle spokesman agrees with the numbers which match amazingly close, for total revenue needed to be pulled from Vogtle to have it make economic sense, 64.8B independent calculation, 65B Vogtle spokesman.

    This will all have the effect of doubling to tripling the cost to consumers in order to implement “green and clean nuclear”

    Real data is here

    • M

      Michael MannAug 22, 2015 at 11:23 am

      Why do you post both as Frank Energy and PacE? Why do you always link to your personal website? Was NukePro too obvious to people that you were sending them to your own website to confirm your own assertions? Yes, it is good to use the safest, cleanest, most reliable way to produce electricity, of course I am talking about nuclear energy!

  • P

    PacEAug 20, 2015 at 6:39 pm

    After you read this mess, you are going to want to submit a response
    to the NRC, which you can do simply right here. Annoymous is OK too,
    but I see no reason for it. The NRC is using the letters from 3 people paid by the radiation industry to justify throwing out the old protective regulations, and replacing it with an unproven “hormesis” which says radiation at 10 to 100 times the former limit is “good for you”!docketDetail;D=NRC-2015-0057

    Here are the 3 people who submitted letters to NRC all around the same time frame. Are these people or monsters>?

    Here is the article, its a good one. The NRC is asking for comments and less than 150 comments on what could kill 100 million people over time.

    • G

      greenthinker2012Aug 23, 2015 at 4:57 pm

      HA HA HA..The man who hides behind multiple aliases says…

      “Annoymous is OK too, but I see no reason for it.”

      If that is what you believe please tell us all the aliases you post under.
      It would be good to know who we are all talking to.

      • P

        PacEAug 24, 2015 at 1:53 pm

        Thats all you got greeny?

        • G

          greenthinker2012Aug 24, 2015 at 6:17 pm

          That’s all for you steve, frank, pace, nuke pro, whoever you are.

  • F

    Frank EnergyAug 19, 2015 at 10:23 am

    McFarland is a pimp for nuke. He is trotting out the insulting banana lie.

    Read this and understand why that lie is actually a damnation of the nuclear industry.

    • M

      Michael MannAug 22, 2015 at 9:20 am

      Frank Energy is an alias for PacE, NukePro, Steve, StevO, steveo77 and who knows how many other anti-nuclear posters whose primary purpose seems to be to send people to his personal blogspot so they can get every anti-nuclear talking point and false meme in one poorly designed place.

      • P

        PacEAug 22, 2015 at 10:45 am

        Mann, you never add value, you just try to put down other people.

        • M

          Michael MannAug 22, 2015 at 11:00 am

          LOL This after you comment calling someone a pimp? Do you think people can’t read your comments because you hide your identity and profile?

          • F

            Frank EnergyAug 22, 2015 at 12:46 pm

            You are a pimp for nuke, don’t worry she real clean….

        • M

          Michael MannAug 22, 2015 at 11:44 am

          PacE/Frank Energy/Steve why do you think pointing out your attempted deception is putting someone down? People should know so they can weigh your comments appropriately.

        • D

          d_pp_lg_ng_rNov 2, 2015 at 1:25 pm

          but you are a shill.

  • J

    Jacqueline Dowe (White Wolf)Jun 3, 2015 at 6:30 pm

    I agree David. There is a lack of knowledge here to some degree about the radiation effects of Fukushima. I can assure you of this from my studies and degree in nuclear science. However, Fukushima isn’t the first leakage of radiation into our waters. There has been numerous counties that have been dumping such materials into the sea. You may want to research this fact. Furthermore, any isotope that is registering and emiting more then background radiation is potentially harmful.

    • F

      Frank EnergyAug 20, 2015 at 9:36 pm

      the NRC is now pushing to remove the decades old
      protections against contamination, and instead replace a cautious policy
      with what they call “hormesis”, that radiation is good for you.

      No joke, details are here.

  • G

    Gail PayneJun 21, 2014 at 7:26 am

    Excellent common-sense article. Thanks!

  • G

    GiovanniMay 4, 2014 at 7:08 pm

    Dear David McFarland,
    What immediately disqualifies your argument is when you said a banana has more radioactive isotopes than tuna.
    The Potassium-40 in bananas is a particularly poor model isotope to use, 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. Bananas aren’t really going to give anyone “a more realistic assessment of actual risk”, they’re just going to further distort the picture.
    Any subatomic particle ingested will ultimately cause cancer and most often death.

    • G

      greenthinker2012Aug 23, 2015 at 5:05 pm

      The extra potassium radiation stays in my body until I excrete it in my urine.
      Of course the Banana Equivalent Dose was not invented to be a perfect measurement system for radiation. It was invented to give the average person a rough idea of how much radiation is being talked about. If I see that the fish has less radiation than a banana it helps put things into perspective.

      Your last sentence that any subatomic particle (I will assume you mean radioactive particle) will cause death is simply silly.
      We regularly ingest radioactive isotopes. A square mile of farm top soil to a depth of 1 foot contains over 2000 Kg of naturally occurring Uranium, Potassium, Thorium, Radium etc.
      We grow our food in this soil.
      We inhale the dust of that soil.

  • D

    d taylorFeb 1, 2014 at 3:30 pm

    For anyone like me who has been eating sushi and seafood since Fukushima
    and has been freaked out by the beach radiation and dead fish, I didnt
    know what to do. First I cut my beloved sushi. I did some research and
    found out some ways to get cesium out of my body. Clays like bentonite
    and zeolite seem to work-but not much data. After Chernobyl the EU
    invested in researching an apple-based product called Vitapect that
    attaches to heavy metals and gets them out. The product removes about
    2/3 of the cesium. Me and my sushi crowd ordered some. The tablets were
    easy to consume, two tabs a day that are concentrated pectin-equivalent
    to 5.5 pounds of apples per day. Anyway, we feel better and will
    probably still eat a bit of sushi-just not as much as before

  • M

    Mike RobinsFeb 1, 2014 at 8:18 am


    • C

      ChewbirdFeb 5, 2014 at 4:20 pm

      Mike, just so you know, Chris Kressler uses very bad sources. I would not drink that koolaid. You may ask me for expertise, and if you are nice, I will educate everyone here. There is no fear from radiation, since we cannot even prove that radiation causes cancer.

      • F

        Frank EnergyAug 22, 2015 at 12:46 pm

        Oh my, you might as well as played the Hitler card…..sheesh

  • D

    David McFarlandJan 29, 2014 at 1:32 pm

    The absolute lack of knowledge on the part of the author is remarkably apparent. No one with any actual knowledge of radiation would ever say it could “ooze,” nor would they call it “toxic.”

    “We don’t need to do that because we’re predicting very low levels.”
    It’d be like saying “We have to worry about a landslide!”
    When they government is saying. “Not really, maybe a few grains of sand…” and criticizing them.

    Present contamination levels in the Tuna that spawn near Fukushima:
    15 becquerels (or 15 decays per second) / 100kg of Tuna. (Cs-137)
    Comparable to the average amount of potassium in a banana: 15 becquerels.

    Now, since the author of this article obviously doesn’t have enough knowledge of radiation to do the calculations, factoring in everything – you still get that a Tuna Steak is safer to eat than a banana (except for the mercury). And you wouldn’t freak out about a banana, would you?

    Now, I’m not a marine biologist, so it’s difficult for me to speak about the claims about the animals.
    However, Andrew Thayer is a marine biologist, and has some interesting things to say:

    • T

      Thomas SchoenbergerFeb 3, 2014 at 6:55 am

      David, you may want to rethink this. There is much reason for concern, as the die off’s of sardines seem to indicate a possible trophic contamination route that is also impacting populations of sardines as well. If you are not a marine biologist, then why only cite one ? Many like Ben Minor, and Peter Raimundi of Santa Ceuz do not share you sense of safety. There is reason to avoid eating any sea food from the Pacific. The reason is Strontium 90 sir.

      • D

        David McFarlandFeb 3, 2014 at 7:52 am

        You mean the Strontium 90 that is not at this time being readily leaked out and was not leaked out in such sufficient quantity to cause such massive damage?

        Source: Did the surveys.

        • T

          Thomas SchoenbergerFeb 3, 2014 at 10:14 am

          Survey’s? There has not been any testing for Strontium 90. The small amount of testing for Cesium 134 and Cesium 137 occurred in 2012, after Blue Fin were caught on August 4th 2011 off of Blacks Beach in San Diego County. All those specimens tested positive for C 134 and C 137. It is estimated that the amount tested is now 10 times higher, due to bio accumulation. You say you were one of the Governments guys. I was too.

          • D

            David McFarlandFeb 3, 2014 at 11:05 am

            So you mean when I was surveying for Strontium, Cesium, and Iodine back in 2011, I wasn’t? Much of what we were getting was Strontium – and it still wasn’t considerable. Sure, we had hot-spots you wouldn’t want to lick, but the flight-deck generally traps contamination.

          • T

            Thomas SchoenbergerFeb 3, 2014 at 11:16 am

            Testing in 2011 is now dated data. Nothing tested since early 2013.All data is dated. We need fresh data and eating sea food from the Pacific poses grave risks, since the lack of reliable data, coupled with the astounding and dramatic fish dies off’s and lack of real reporting from TEPCO is enough to make any reasonable person decide to stay away from sea food until realistic data comes in. This is common sense, not fear mongering

          • D

            David McFarlandFeb 3, 2014 at 12:40 pm

            Oh, that was just what I did. I’ve since moved on to more the Reactor Safety side of the house.
            My boat does constant surveys of the area – both air and water. Far more than I used to think, actually. I used to think only us nuclear operators did them – I was very, very wrong. We’ve even got regular non-nuclear trained guys doing the remediation surveys – like a dozen a day (I should know, I have to sign off on all of them with my new position) and they still see nothing additional. The only reason we have non-nukes do them is *because* we haven’t seen anything new for years and we don’t have time to do them ourselves. It’s not hard to teach someone “Alright, you put the frisker here and just see if it reads anything above usual, let us know if you see anything above like 50 counts per minute.”
            We haven’t seen any strontium since then.

            Yeah, we don’t test fish, but we do internal dose surveys. Yes, I know, you can’t test for ingested strontium. Not directly. You can test for ingested cesium, though. We are not only seeing no cesium internally, but not externally, either.

            Heck, I surveyed myself the other week.
            And yes, myself and my co-workers as still eating fresh Japanese sushi. The best ones are the ones that get their food from the local fishermen. You know, the ones that fish far closer to Fukushima than California by thousands of miles.

          • F

            Frank EnergyAug 18, 2015 at 11:06 pm

            Its not at baseline, even Kenny boy is predicting 15 Bq/M3

          • M

            Michael MannSep 10, 2015 at 3:20 pm

            Frank Energy/NukPro/PacE/steveo77 Is this what you mean by “capping”?? How you replied to a post 2 years old? Thank you for pointing it out to me, I might not have noticed otherwise!

          • A

            Atoms4Peace1Sep 10, 2015 at 9:11 pm

            You hound my peeps, I hound you. Hot Carl is coming. Better notify the rats to be on the alert.

          • C

            ChewMar 2, 2014 at 5:03 pm

            I’ve been wondering who has been impersonating me as “Chewbird”.

            My Disqus username is Chew; my YouTube username is Chew Bird but you are one of the few people who truncate it to one word.

            I always hyphenate isotopes while you never do.

            I use metric; you don’t.

            It would appear you have a long history of this sort of thing:

          • C

            ChewMar 2, 2014 at 5:45 pm

            Here you are pretending to be a “Dr Ray Linnell”.


            You misspelled the abbreviation for cesium there just like you did above. And you didn’t hypenate the isotopes. But my favorite part is you accusing Ken Buesseler of being me!

            Hasn’t it ever occurred to you that if you have to impersonate someone to make them look stupid there must be something wrong with your side of a debate?

        • F

          Frank EnergyAug 18, 2015 at 11:05 pm

          Ya der eh, nuke pimp, send me the raw data.

          [email protected]

          • D

            David McFarlandAug 19, 2015 at 8:04 am

            What “raw data” are you looking for? It’s not like we all got to keep hard copies of this stuff individually. If it’s inconsequential and it’s not from us, the US military doesn’t exactly care. What exactly do you expect us to have?

          • F

            Frank EnergyAug 19, 2015 at 10:13 am

            Uh, you know those little things called PDF, Excel, computer records, gamma scint printout scans… know those things that modern society uses everyday, you know…..records. You are making assertions, can you back them up with records?

          • D

            David McFarlandAug 19, 2015 at 9:14 pm

            We keep things that matter. When it comes down to “Pffft, 1mrem additional every week?” You tend to not care. It’s not like anything else could even be gleaned from the data or gained by keeping it.
            We also didn’t keep them ourselves since it isn’t Naval Nuclear Power. We keep data on our own contamination. Everything else gets routed to other organizations. There are a few documents related to continued remediation surveys, but those I’d have access to would get me thrown in prison for presenting, as they’re all on my equipment, which is quite specifically confidential. I’m sure there are some on Ventilation systems and the like, but you’d likely find reasons not to believe them anyway.
            We were also the source of the data, not generating the compiled reports. So even if we had reports that we, the Navy, kept, it still would have been determined by other organizations like Naval Reactors, Bettis, Department of Energy, the Japanese government and their own organizations, et cetera. When it comes to finding compiled data, you’d have just as much access to it as I would.

            What I did generate myself was essentially a list of names with (paraphrasing) “Below Minimum Detectable Activity,” written next to each one. Essentially we can’t prove that they had nothing, just that there is no technology that can detect what they had. Which, we can tell if you’re wearing an iridium watch, so, it could be paraphrased as “Nothing to worry about,”

            Besides, that was four years ago. Even if I had personal data, it’d be stuffed in some random unknown corner (or, rather, be on a delivery ship in the middle of the Pacific Ocean as I’m currently executing a PCS, which is besides the point)
            I probably have something in my medical record. Which I oddly don’t have ready access to all the time. I know what it amounts to; the same thing we had for everyone else: Nothing to worry about.

            You seem to know very little about how these things happen.

            Conversely, I could be asking you for proof that I’m wrong. Difference is that I know what I saw. You know assumptions based on an archaic, Climate Hating bias opinion.

          • P

            PacEAug 20, 2015 at 9:46 am

            Ah top secret, “we didnt keep that”, my word is better than your word

            Is this a set of lies from the nukist or from Hilda-beast Clinton?

          • D

            David McFarlandAug 20, 2015 at 10:09 pm

            No, not “Top Secret.” Confidential.
            Levels go:
            NOFORN (No Foreign Nationals)
            Top Secret

            As in, if I let the Chinese see that stuff that we operate in our plants, I go to jail for the rest of my life.
            Conversely, if I tell you about radiation levels on our flight deck, no one cares.

            What word do you even have?
            Is an eyewitness account not good enough for you people?
            It certainly is enough to incriminate a man to be sentenced to death, but isn’t enough to prove nuclear power safe when the specific incident didn’t even kill people?

          • P

            PacEAug 20, 2015 at 10:35 pm

            conca, lol, he just shoots from the hip, just a huckster promoter. I know the Conca shill.

          • D

            David McFarlandAug 20, 2015 at 10:55 pm

            Hence why I gave you more than just Conca.
            Pretty short reply for such a long comment, though. Nothing else to say about any of that?

          • P

            PacEAug 21, 2015 at 8:34 am

            I have gotten a lot of laughs over that rad chart over the years, first time I saw it I thought it was very instructive. Its a pimp job for nuke.

            The first 3 items show that eating a banana is more dangerous than living next to a nuke plant. The classic banana lie, out of the gate, here is the debunk.


            And recent powerful studies show without doubt that living next to a nuke plant does significantly increase your risk of disease. Not based on modeling of releases by the nuke industry, based on actual disease.

          • D

            David McFarlandAug 21, 2015 at 10:45 am

            The “banana lie.” I’m not saying that bananas are particularly harmful.
            I’m saying that nuclear power is LESS harmful to the general populace. Especially in the US.

            Talk to me about all of the shielding between someone living outside of a nuclear power plant and the plant itself, since you obviously know SO MUCH about it. Talk to me about all of the precautions taken by nuclear power plants, all of the considerations put into place, all of the self-imposed limits. You’re obviously the expert. Tell me about what levels are actually harmful.
            Tell me about what MY limits are for working on a nuclear power plant.

            I’m sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for your response.

            As far as bananas are concerned.
            The point is that you’re keeping a radioisotope in your home. You’re consuming it. For 16 hours (the time it takes to process that excess K-40 out of your body), you are getting an increased dose. If your body lacks potassium, it does indeed take that extra bit into your body. You will maintain homeostasis, yes, and eating an excess amount of it isn’t going to have a drastic effect…
            … But when you live outside of 12 miles (horizon line) from a Nuke Plant, you might as well live a million miles away from it.
            … Or if you live outside a properly shielded nuke plant, you might as well live a million miles away from it.
            Or I suppose you could clean actual information from one of the few sources you trust.

            It’s the reason why you’ll get a similar dose as sleeping next to someone as living within 50 miles of a nuke plant.

            I suppose you’ve taken radiological surveys inside and outside of a nuclear power plant? I’ve taken plenty of them RIGHT OUTSIDE A REACTOR COMPARTMENT. (Standing Control Point Watch gets rather boring). I’ve also taken plenty of air samples. Part of our training process is to show us how little nuclear power plants actually emit. We take surveys near a critical reactor (outside of the shielded volume, of course), one when it’s shut down (not all that different levels), and outside the building itself.
            Now, here’s the funny part. My initial training on operational reactors was in a valley. If you know anything about how the Earth works or natural isotopes, you’ll know what I’m about to talk about next:
            It gets funny when you’re doing your training surveys and you get high counts. Your instructor looks at it for a second, has a moment of realization, and then decides to show you an example. Go outside, far away from the reactor. Same. Exact. Counts. Doesn’t matter if it’s critical, shutdown, whatever. Why?
            Same reason you want to have a well insulated basement. Same reason why Colorado has a higher background radiation than most of Japan did during Fukushima. Radon. It has a much higher effect on your body than living near a nuke plant.

            You’re largely discounting a lot of other factors. To assume that there is only one factor – proximity – is only one matter.
            Or, let’s say you’ve actually BEEN CLOSE to a nuke plant, you’d know that land value largely drops near nuke plants. Why? Because people are afraid of it, largely. They’re unsightly.
            So people who can’t afford costly land live close to them. People who similarly also have less access, financially, to proper medical care and disease prevention.

            Just saying, “lol disease” isn’t going to convince anyone. “Disease” is a pretty broad term. You need to be specific.

          • P

            PacEAug 21, 2015 at 11:03 am

            Do you get paid by the word, you sure have a lot of time on your hands!

          • D

            David McFarlandAug 21, 2015 at 4:10 pm

            I’m on leave, buddy, and I type quickly.

          • L

            ltsnyderMar 19, 2016 at 1:22 pm

            Obviously a nuke pimp, as was stated, he used the banana lie right out of the gate and when he tried to backtrack he refused to identify the difference between radioactive potassium and radioactive stronthium. The devil is in the details, that why his statements read like a glossy brochure and he refuses to discuss details. Notice the “all american icon” for him 😉

          • M

            Michael MannMar 19, 2016 at 1:27 pm

            Another worthless comment, name calling without any substance from Itsnyder.. looking at the comments they just call anyone with real information a “shill” The shill gambit is a type of ad hominem and poisoning the well wherein one party dismisses the other’s arguments by proclaiming them to be on the payroll of some agency.

          • L

            ltsnyderMar 19, 2016 at 1:44 pm

            Look, this discussion has been ongoing for 2 years, and the schills respond in second, notice the lack of content in the response. So tell me what is the bananna lie and why is it a lie,and why do schills use it? BTW, don’t respond to the question, attack my character immediately, lol.

          • D

            David McFarlandMar 19, 2016 at 2:43 pm

            What is your education level in regards to nuclear power? I’m rather curious. i always find that the least educated on the matter are the most vehemently opposed. Many of them even think that reactors glow green.

            Bonus points if you know WHY people think reactors glow green without googling it.

          • L

            ltsnyderMar 19, 2016 at 3:26 pm

            “Many of the ignorant folks even think that reactors glow green”, green , blue, big difference.

            The problem is the toxicity of these isotopes, the toxicity is mind boggling. The waste, yes, the nuclear waste that makes every nuclear facility a virtual dooms day device if the right event happens. Please if you respond directly to my comments, talk about the toxicity of the elements.

          • D

            David McFarlandMar 19, 2016 at 6:18 pm

            The reactors don’t even glow blue. Not really. Most don’t, at least. The only ones you do see glowing blue are the ones in pools of water.

            You mean the elements that wash away in the first rain and were still found in only small doses after the plume? You want to claim their toxicity? How about you give figures to support your claims, considering you complaining about it is the first time I’ve heard anyone broach the subject of toxicity in the five years since the incident.
            It seems that you’ve run out of argument, even if I give you one. So, the ball’s in your court. Make your claims to the toxicity, about everything it didn’t do in the last five years, about all the people that didn’t die or get effected by it.
            And then go about arguing everything I said, unless, of course, you can’t.

            Keep in mind the only reason why this reactor was still operating is because of fear of reactors – few, except the French, have made great progress on civil reactors because people are too afraid to build new ones, yet don’t want to give up their precious cheap electricity, forcing the old ones to stay online.

          • L

            ltsnyderMar 19, 2016 at 7:20 pm

            “You mean the elements that wash away in the first rain…..”

            Did you remember to wash out your lungs? I didn’t think so, in fact no one did. The inside of your lungs are still similar to the surface of that ship after the fallout. To get an idea of the toxicicty let’s take a look at another radioactive substance, namely radium, now the EPA limit on radium in water is 4 pico-curies per liter, now it is pretty easy to calculate because one gram of radium creates the standard for a curie and a pico-curie is 1 over one followed by 12 zeros, i.e. one trillionth. calculating this out it would take 2 nickles in weight of radium salt to contaminate one cubic mile of water above EPA levels. That is one hell of a toxin. Now mind you, it might only raise the chance of fatal cancer by 1 in 1000, but to be honest, I am not volenterring for that. For Fukushima, we are not talking about grams we are talking about tons. I truly wish you health and happiness in the future, but military education on nuclear danger would not be very effective if people left their posts because of what might happen in 5-20 years, best to leave that out of the manual. It is easy to research hot particles and long term radiation burden.

            Or more to the point, the joke about “Military Intelligence” you are not suppose to “thinkl” about orders, it leads to a very ineffective fighting force.

          • D

            David McFarlandMar 19, 2016 at 8:52 pm

            You’re a bit late on the draw, Itsnyder, by about 5 years. You seem to be arrogant enough to think that you, with no education on the matter, can outsmart an entire organization that has been doing this since the 1950s. When you give a bunch of guys all sorts of Bachelors and Masters degrees and make it their job to do nothing but learn about this stuff, turns out they’re better than you at doing so, Itsnyder. Don’t be so arrogant.

            Yes, I know what was in my lungs. Turns out the gigantic box I stood inside of could detect that crap. We even had a couple smokers in our test group. Turns out, cigarettes give you more radiation exposure than Fukushima. Who’d have thought?

            “Biological half-lives,” look it up.

            Turns out we’ve learned a think or two. What stays in the body, what doesn’t. How to detect what remains. How well your avioli trap caesium. Not as well as you’d think.

            Haha, literal tons of radium. I don’t even need to look that up to know you’re full of it and haven’t bother to look that fact up yourself. Turns out one of us knows relative fuel loading for nuclear reactors and general makeup of fuel after years of burnout and decay.
            Let’s just admit that the person not-in-the-know is you, here.

            Worse, you’ve fallen into the trap of thinking you know something about the military because you watched Full Metal Jacket that one time or saw a documentary on Boot Camp and assumed the rest of the military was like that. Naval Nuclear Power is another beast entirely, to the point that we refer to ourselves as “The Nuclear Navy,” as if we were entirely separate from the rest of the Navy. Because we are, in a sense, separate. We do things very differently. More carefully, logically, and intelligently, with less restriction regarding rank and more importance upon someone simply being right rather than being higher in rank.
            Do. Not. Pretend. To. Know. Things. You. Do. Not. Like anything about Naval Nuclear Power or how we respond to orders. For example: Men in my field have been given Achievement Medals for disobeying orders and physically assaulting their officers. Our oversight committees abandon their uniforms in lieu of suits and ties so that rank no longer plays a part in reporting problems – so that it becomes plain and simple. Admiral Hyman Rickover ordered his officers to never bring in Navy Blue-Jackets Manuals because he didn’t want his organization to be cut-and-dry, and he certainly didn’t want “Yes Men” who wouldn’t think about orders. His interviews with prospective officers were notorious for getting rid of that type of individual, and enforcing the types who would defy authority to do what was right.

            So, Itsnyder, you’ve proven your lack of knowledge once again on the matter. I advise you to call it quits before you do so again.
            Assumptions will get you nowhere. This is my playing field. I have the knowledge. I have the firsthand experience. I am quite literally the source of the facts. I am the test subject that is the proof that all you are doing is spinning lies and deceit. I am the very worst thing you could be arguing against. All you’ve got on your side is hopefullness that Google will generate a result that might trip me up. Don’t worry, I’ve been looking on Google for years on this matter to hunt out ignorant. arrogant fools like you who somehow think they can trip up experts, like a patient supposing he can outdiagnose his doctor or cure his own cancer.
            So, please, put away your snake-oil, sit down, and learn something.
            This is my field of expertise. I would not question how you do your job. Do not question how I do mine. You’ll lose horridly, as you already are.

          • M

            Michael MannMar 19, 2016 at 9:30 pm

            Are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger Effect? You explained it pretty well…

          • D

            David McFarlandMar 20, 2016 at 5:14 am

            Quite aware of it, wasn’t aware it had a name.

          • L

            ltsnyderMar 20, 2016 at 6:34 am

            David, you are not dosed with Cesium directly, you are dosed with hot particle fallout, that is completely different, that is why you need to realize how the fallout got there in the first place. A large volume of particles greater than 400nm in diameter you will see coming to you as a cloud, you did not see this. As for particles smaller than 2.5 microns, they deposit themselves almost anywhere in the body. You really need to stop attacking and start using details. This is a serious issue.

            PS, glad to hear they want thinkers there on duty, that is good, very good.

          • D

            David McFarlandMar 20, 2016 at 9:41 am

            I’m glad you know what was dosed with and what I saw. I suppose you performed the surveys? All you’re stating is the obvious at this point. Yes, we did get non-visible plumes of contamination, with a good portion of that being cesium. It was still too little to worry about, because, as it turns out, even old reactors were built by rather intelligent men who knew how to factor in such accidents and prevent them from getting too drastic. GE even figured out what would go wrong with the MkI BWRs at Fukushima before they happened and told TEPCO how to fix them. They did not follow these instructions.

            I’ve told you the details. I was properly diagnosed with a coffin-sized radiac, and determined my internal exposure and retained contamination had been <MDA. Not just imbedded particles, but specific lungs, thyroid, et cetera. Whole body, inside and out.
            There's your detail. <MDA. Less than Minimum Detectable Activity. Such small exposure that I can't even give you a true number because a true number can't be determined, and they could tell who had a potassium filled breakfast that day; that's how accurate those machines were. I had nothing considerable deposited in my body, nor did anyone else. I've said this before, but apparently you're ignoring what I'm saying.
            More details: Long term surveys determined that over a month-long period, I received 4mrem additionally that I wouldn't have were it not for the Reactor Accident. I've said this before too. Considering average global dose is 1 mrem/day, the average person would have gotten roughly 30mrem in that same period. Now, keep in mind that Japan's average background for a month is only about 15mrem. Meaning, we can round my dose during the Fukushima plumes to 20mrem, which still means that even though I was being exposure to this fallout, I still had less damage done to my body than you did during that same time period in all likelihood. That's how little fallout there truly was.

            This is all stuff I've said before.

            Now, you need to start actually arguing and stop making yourself look like a fool, and start actually responding to my statements.

          • L

            ltsnyderMar 21, 2016 at 4:00 am

            We are running over the same ground here, you have a basic misunderstanding about how fallout and hot particles are created. That is how you know the general doseing. Look up any video on pouring co2 to extinguish a flame, that, co2 is about one fourth the density of ceasium, so if co2 flows straight down, how did 4-10 times as dense get in your flight deck, and what initiated the fallout. These are things you need to understand. The full body scan will not detect these hot particles, you should know that, but you should clarify, what is a radix? NMR? Catscan?

          • D

            David McFarlandMar 23, 2016 at 4:47 pm

            Again, Dunning-Kruger effect. At this point I wouldn’t be surprised if you said that a reactor “going critical” was a bad thing.

            Small enough particulate can indeed cover that distance. I don’t need to look up a video. Fact is fact. We did surveys. We analyzed for half-life and energy. They matched Cesium. Plain. And. Simple. No arguing, Itsnyder. I don’t think you understand that fact. CO2 flows down (not straight down, but it doesn’t have a long range) out of a fire extinguisher because of thermodynamics (that CO2 is cold as hell – cold enough that you can freeze your hand to the nozzle if you use a large enough canister.) If you didn’t know, cold fluids fall. Hot fluids rise. Gas, like CO2, is a fluid. I didn’t even need my nuclear education to know that, but, apparently, you don’t even have a background in Middle School level Physics.
            Small particulate, like microscopic cesium particulate and other forms of contamination, is also subject to Brownian motion; ergo, it doesn’t have to fall. Air currents, however slight, can keep it aloft. Like dust. Which is essentially what we are talking about. Except this dust was radioactive.
            When that cesium was spread, it was mixed in with hot gases and steam, and thrown out violently. That means that small particulate can be thrown high in the atmosphere and travel quite far. It’s the same reason why, when Chernobyl occurred, radiation alarms were going off at Norfolk Naval base in Virginia. Let that sink in. Particulate traveled from Ukraine, around the globe, to the east coast of the US. Then remember that they had to travel over Asia, the Pacific, and the rest of the US to get there, because of how air currents flow.

            Your not entirely wrong though; especially heavier/denser particulate, the more dangerous stuff, didn’t make it far; that’s why there were exclusion zones.
            However, you’re pretty wrong.
            I do not “have a basic misunderstanding about how fallout and hot particles are created.”
            Considering I f***ing make them. I have turned quite a bit of uranium into other elements. When I stand watch, I literally control a nuclear reactor. I am not the guy that ensures feed pumps are running. I don’t control the main engines. I make power do what I want it to; I move control rods. I start it up, shut it down, and make sure it’s safe.
            When the cladding of said fuel acts as the primary containment boundary. When the cladding is breached – say, during a meltdown – and the primary coolant boundary, and the reactor compartment, are all breached, these fission products may escape as fallout.
            I highly doubt you knew that. And that’s not even a complicated level of nuclear knowledge.

            You have a basic misunderstanding of just about everything involved in this discussion. Again, Dunning-Kruger effect playing itself out.
            I have a knowledge about nuclear reactors – and that includes radiation, contamination, and their effects – that equates to having attended 5 years of an Ivy League College. You do not. You’re not going to best me. You’re not going to best the 600 nuclear operators who were in the area that all came to the same conclusions that I did. You’re not going to best the hundreds of men and women in Naval Reactors, the Department of Energy, various colleges and independent studies who all have degrees on this sort of thing. Yes, we were getting Cesium. No, it was not a problem.

            The fact that you don’t know what a radiac is signifies that you don’t know what it can detect or whether or not I could know about what’s inside my body. It just makes you sound silly.

            Let’s stop and reflect on something quite significant:
            You’re talking about radiation and contamination and don’t know what a radiac is.
            Like, really, man? Please, please tell me you’re trolling me right now.
            What you are doing, Itsnyder, is actually funny. It’s equivalent to walking into a doctor’s office and telling him you have something in your lungs, then asking him what a stethoscope is. You’ve proven you are not fit to have this argument. You don’t even know the basics.
            That’s not even an attack on you. It’s a statement of the fcat that you are ignorant. Ignorance is not an insult – it is simply a lack of knowledge. Everyone is ignorant in some regard. Nuclear power is a common ignorance – it’s not a simple matter, so that’s understandable.
            Your ignorance just so happens to be in the very field that you’re trying to argue.

            But, anyway, let’s make you less ignorant.
            A radiac is any radiation detector. This includes geiger-mueller, scintillation detectors, ion chambers, et cetera; most work off of the principles of the gas-amplification curve. They can, indeed, detect the radiation given off by that radioactive particulate. It does not detect the particulate itself, just the radiation it emits. Ones roughly the size of your thigh are considered to be highly sensitive and can detect singular, individual radioactive particles.
            And the one I got my whole-body scan in was literally big enough to enclose me. It literally detected every bit of radiation emitted from my body. To the point they could tell me I probably needed to eat more potassium.
            The “Hot particulate” is more formally, to those of us who know what we’re talking about, is called “contamination.”

          • A

            atomikrabbitMar 23, 2016 at 5:31 pm

            David, I’m sure you already know this, but for the benefit of other readers:

            Part of the reason minute amounts of radioCesium (including Cs134 and 137) particulate can be found far from their source may be because their parent radionuclide is Xenon (Xe134 or 137), which of course is a noble gas easily transported and diffused by atmospheric currents. And the parent of Xenon is Iodine, some forms of which are volatile at only slightly elevated temperatures.

            So some of the material that was released as Iodine or Xenon gets transported in that form until it beta decays to Cesium, which eventually becomes stable Barium. Some of the Cs is also a direct fission product.

            In all, it has been calculated that about 4 Kg of Cs were released by the triple core melt events in Japan, the low concentrations of which were easily detectable above background, but far below levels of biological concern. But of course that doesn’t mean they were below levels of media, political, or psychological concern.

          • D

            David McFarlandMar 23, 2016 at 7:22 pm

            Actually did forget that (it’s been five years), thanks for bringing that up.

          • L

            ltsnyderMar 23, 2016 at 7:57 pm

            Most likely you went through a liquid scitillation counter, that will not catch everything, it will give a general idea of exposure, it will not catch(or detect) hot particles. You seem to have a league of justice attitude to technology, there is no sure fire technich to protect you, beyond a NBC suit and even then the filter is a problem. Your exposure is based on exposure through various failed systems like the water filtration unit, you also need to consider the delay to your “full body scan”. Air filters on the boat might have reduced your exposure. The people of Tokyo had no such protection. A lot of this stuff requires calculations that (I’m sorry, seem to be beyond you).

            It took 700 grams of cesium134 to end a way of life in Norway herding reindeer I wish you all the luck in the world.

            They say the difference between a economic depression and recession depends on if you lose your job. Similarly the difference between too much radiation and a safe amount depends on if you are the one that ends up with cancer. It is no joke,it is real, and it happens. You seem to talk past people, like I said,good luck, you’ll need it.

          • D

            David McFarlandMar 24, 2016 at 2:34 pm

            Like I’m going to listen to a discussion regarding nuclear physics from a guy who doesn’t even understand radioactive decay, browning motion, or BASIC THERMODYNAMICS.
            Don’t change the subject.
            How about you first start addressing all of my arguments? How about you say, “Oh, you’re right, I was wrong. CO2 falls down out of a fire extinguisher because of basic thermodynamics that I didn’t even think to address.”

            You seem to have a “I don’t care that I have no facts, just assumptions” attitude towards this subject. I should create a Dunning-Kruger hashtag on twitter. Just for you.

            I find it absolutely hilarious that here I am, a guy who lived through all of this, a guy with years of experience, a guy who literally operates reactors for a living, so well educated that I’m now an Instructor on operating reactors, and here you are saying, “Nuh uh, I think it’s actually this way, even though I have no proof of it.”
            You don’t even know basic thermodynamics. Let’s reflect on that, and on how you seem to ignore that.

            You don’t know what detector was used, and you’re already presuming that it couldn’t do what I said it did, in spite of the fact that I previously stated that I’ve worked on scintillation detectors before, and obviously know how they work.
            I doubt you’d even have the presence of mind to go so far as to smack someone for shining a light inside of a scintillation detector “because it was too dark to work on.”

            The detector (sorry, I don’t know the exact classification) was a wide spectrum detector capable of detecting alphas, betas, and gammas, and neutrons. In truth, it was technically a multitude of detectors. That, along with the multitude of times I put a beta-gamma detector up to my neck, yeah, I know I didn’t get anything internal. After a while I was doing it FOR FUN.
            Do not suppose upon things you have already shown you know nothing about.

            As far as the calculations, yeah, sure, I don’t know how to do the calculations. Not at all. I didn’t like, go to a Nuclear Power School where we have an entire class on nothing but how to do EXACTLY THAT.
            Oh, wait, I DID go to that school.
            And I’ve qualified Radiation Working multiple times. Heck, just today I had to prove that I knew how to calculate shielding and exposure levels from X amount of Y source. Literally, today. Like, everything we are talking about. Quality factors, atomic mass, exposure, difference between Roentgen, REM, and Rad, et cetera. Tomorrow I plan on doing the check-out to prove I know the different types of radiacs. Which I had to do before.
            Like when I qualified Radiation Worker. For the third freaking time (you have to do it at each new site.)
            …. And you don’t even know basic thermodynamics. And you’re trying to educate a nuclear operator who has had to deal with real fallout. I might as well be talking to a five year old.

            You’re right, to a point. I actually got LESS than 4mrem, which is what the average Tokyo citizen received.
            However, you’d be surprised how many ventilation systems are HEPA filtered, and how many everyday things are adequate for decontamination. Like tape, soap, water, brillo pads, et cetera.

            And 700 grams is more than a pound. That’s a LOT of cesium.
            As far as cancer – I am aware of the effects and the risks. Yes, I could have received that one gamma or that one beta that will wind up killing me. But, based on overall percentages, considering I received less than most people, odds are I didn’t. Heck, I could have received the lethal light particle in the last second. Odds are actually better that I get cancer from my time here in America than in Japan.

            Point is, Itsnyder, I’ve been at this longer than you. I’ve argued about it longer than you. I’ve lived the very thing you’re trying to argue against. You haven’t. I have first hand experience, you don’t.
            I understand nuclear physics.
            And you blatantly do not even have a middle-school level education in science.

          • L

            ltsnyderMar 24, 2016 at 4:39 pm

            Look, at this point we at romper room level, sorry but that is how I see it. I really get a headache trying to fish content out of your screeds, so I probably won’t post again in spite of all the insults you might try to hurl.

            I said ” Look up any video on pouring co2 to extinguish a flame, that, co2 is
            about one fourth the density of ceasium, so if co2 flows straight down,
            how did 4-10 times as dense get in your flight deck, and what initiated
            the fallout.”

            Your response is to start yabbering about thermodynamics, and how “CO2 is cold as hell” and how I know nothing.

            I have no idea where you whip up this drek, but let me put it simply ,go back and look for youtbe videos on co2 pouring to extinguish a flame, exclude fire extinguisher videos. You can find a number of basic chemistry experiments where co2 is poured from a flask onto a flame to extinguish it. Now go to your cabinet and take out vinegar and baking soda, and mix a little in a cup, you will see bubbles, now don’t freeze your hand, but slowly lower your hand towards the bubble, your your shock and delight you will find the bubbles at room temperature, how amazing. That s called thermal equilibrium, because since everything is the same temperature, there is not heat transfer, which is what THERMODYNAMICS is, the study of heat transfer.

            Make sure to look up the video on floating a bubble on CO2 (room temp co2).

            Let’s see what other idiocies do we have imbedded in your comments…..

            oh yes, “a pound of ceasium 134 is a lot!”, we’ll yet is is,in away you are right, but the damage it did to render a way of life non-viable is amazing, 1 pound and you can’t eat the reindeer anywhere in Norway. Now compare that to tons of Corium missing from three nuclear reactors and imagine the possibilities. Why the heck you go out of your way to eat fukashima fish is beyond me, I don’t want to touch that one.

            Again, here we go with “Legue of Justice” super fantastic technology…..
            “The detector (sorry, I don’t know the exact classification) was a wide
            spectrum detector capable of detecting alphas, betas, and gammas, and

            Let’s take a look at the technologies available, here they are …


            Geiger counter, scintillation, neutron detector, but of course the navy has a super fandango legue of justice everything detector.

            This is they same military where if you die outside of a VA hospital they will deny your surviving spouse any benifits beyond burial and planting a flag on your grave, whoopieee!

            Now I want you to focuse, I know you want to rant, but focus, answer this question, how long past the exposure did you get a full body count? Same day? a week later? when? establish the exact number of days between the exposure and the examination in the full body counter. Why did they say your exposure was “NORMAL” why not give you a count,and then say the”count” is normal, and btw, this is what the count was…..

          • D

            David McFarlandMar 24, 2016 at 5:33 pm

            Okay, I’m adding this bit last, so forgive the disjointed-ness. You’re scaring me a bit and are destroying my faith in humanity. How exactly is it that you think cesium is detected? Seriously, like, how? You…. you do realize it’s a gamma-emitter, right? That gammas can be picked up on Geiger-Mueller detectors? That it doesn’t need to be a super-whammodyne detector? Just a regular old geiger-mueller? Please tell me you know this. Please. If you don’t, you really shouldn’t be arguing. Because if you don’t realize that a geiger-mueller detector is sufficient to detect gammas emitted by cesium-137- because gammas can escape from the human body where they can be picked up by a geiger-mueller detector, and that a human body, front-to-back, will only attenuate them between a factor of roughly 3 and 10 (depending on water-mass, fat, etc.) that all the box I’ve described as a “wide-spectrum” detector only needs to have a Geiger-Mueller, Scintillation, and a ion-chamber? Please tell me you realize this. Please. Please. Please tell me you can’t be that arrogant to think that someone who doesn’t realize this fact is capable of arguing with a trained nuclear operator.
            I’ve come to the realization that you don’t know how radiation works, how to detect it, or how the detectors work. Do you even know what radiation is? Specifically as it pertains to this discussion, ionizing radiation? What forms it comes in?
            Except I know the answer. You don’t know this. If you did, you wouldn’t have suggested that a Geiger-Mueller detector would be insufficient to detect gammas emitted by internal-activity to the human body. If you even knew that Cesium-137 was a gamma emitter.
            Please, be a troll. For the love of all that is Holy, please, tell me now that you are a troll.
            It seems as though your argument is a disjointed collection of Google-searches. You’ve looked up what the detectors are, without realizing that they’ll do exactly as I’ve described was done. You’ve looked up density, without realizing that decays from other fission products and the combination of brownian-motion, wind, and initial kinetic energy can result in Cesium popping up this place and that.
            You don’t seem to even know anything about ionizing radiation itself. You’ve given no indication of knowing what cesium activity really is, or how it’s activity levels can show us just how much is present.

            (I love how the detectors you listed are enough to do exactly what I’ve described).
            Oh, do tell me what this “super fandango league of justice everything detector” can detect, it sounds interesting.
            No, the Navy just has detectors that can detect betas, neutrons, gammas, and alphas – you know, harmful ionizing radiation – but I want that super-whammodyne crap you’re going on about, it sounds cool.
            But, as it turns out, no, the Navy just has what it needs to detect ionizing radiation. Turns out it’s not that hard, since, you know, it ionizies things, and that generally creates a current in some fashion, meaning you can get a digital readout. Design your detector properly, and you can even gauge energy levels (scintillation detectors are especially good at this).
            If you haven’t figured out why this means why the Navy could detect whether or not there was cesium in my body, it’s because Cesium emits gammas. They pierce the body rather well. In fact, they don’t even interact with the detectors we use all that well – but we know two things:
            1. How much the detectors shield those gammas.
            2. How to do the math to figure out how much is actually getting by, and using that to determine activity levels or general area radiation levels.

            So, no, the Navy doesn’t have super fandango detectors. Just the ones you listed. Turns out those are enough.

            As mentioned by others, just because cesium is dense doesn’t mean it can’t get there. It didn’t have to start out as cesium. Turns out the cesium comes from somewhere. Sometimes, that’s a decay from another element. Like Xenon, one of the most common fission products.
            Yes, CO2 does flow down. This does not mean cesium will. Like I said, Brownian motion.

            A common joking rhyme is “the solution to pollution is dilution.” Sure, you gather all of what escaped together, yes, that’s dangerous. You spread it out over all of Japan and the Pacific? You what you work out is that a single tuna steak will give you just as much a dose as a banana. Before you start spouting of “ERMAGHERD HE’S TALKING ABOUT BANANAS HE’S AN IDIOT,” you can still figure out how much damage a banana will indeed do to your body so long as you know the activity (10-15bq), the energy levels of the particulate emitted (you can find this on wikipedia) and the biological stay-time. Then do the same for what they found in fish.
            Conveniently enough, the fish, per 100kg, HAD (no long does) the same amount of activity from fallout – 15bq – per 100kg. Over 200 pounds, as opposed to a little banana. However, then, you must factor in energy levels, and biological stay time. The big equalizer is that last bit – cesium does stay in the body longer.
            So, ultimately, work out the calculations – A single tuna steak from an activated tuna would do the same damage to your body as a banana would. If you don’t like that comparison, it would do less to your body than a brazil nut.

            The surveys were taken within the week, but after most of the plumes had a chance to settle (the answer you’re looking for is – “Within the biological-half-life of cesium-137”). Following this, we did internal-dose investigations for hundreds of people. Some of them lived on the ship, some of them lived on-base, and most lived out-in-town, exactly the sorts of areas you were worried about.
            Turns out sailors are people too, and generally don’t want to be on the ship when they don’t have to be. You don’t want to live at work when you don’t have to, neither do we.

            As far as my count, AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED it was “Less than minimum detectable activity.” If you were educated on the matter, you’d realize that there is no point in giving a value beyond this. There was so little activity within our bodies we were shielding natural, clean background radiation, as the human body normally does; our presence was lowering radiation levels within the detector, as the water in our bodies was acting as a natural shield – as it should. Were there cesium within our lungs, the gammas emitted – would have been detected.. The point was that there was so little activity within our bodies, natural cosmic rays and natural radon were interfering with the results too drastically to give a true, accurate count. The activity within our bodies was indistinguishable from that of a human who hadn’t been exposed to fallout, as the body normally has a certain level of potassium and other activated elements from foods, drinking water, and other normal sources. When it gets that low, the counts you’re given are a range – they can’t be exact.
            Imagine having a clean floor, and stating that on any given day there are between 10 and 30 specks of dust per square foot on that floor. They’re hard to detect, but you can get an average, generally speaking. Now add 2-5 specks of dust per square foot. At any given time, you might be slightly above your average levels, but you’re going to be, on average, still so low that you can’t tell which specks are the new and which are the old.

          • L

            ltsnyderMar 25, 2016 at 4:20 am

            “you don’t realize that a geiger-mueller detector is sufficient to detect gammas emitted by cesium-137”

            Scintillation detectors are much more effective at getting hit counts, if you used both you would know, of courseit does depend on the sizeof thedetector,the gm tube is poor at getting the energy of the gammarays, a liquid scintillation detector is highly sensitive, that is why the full body counter only needs liquid scintillation it captures the energy of the rays, the largest volume and can encompass the subject easily.

            “Yes, CO2 does flow down. This does not mean cesium will. Like I said, Brownian motion.”

            Actually yes it does, and even faster. The behavior of gases is determined by

            1) Brownian motion.
            2) Mean free path.
            3) Laws of conservation of momentum.
            4) Ballistic trajectory

            These effect go back to thermodynamics, for instance the gap in many house insulated windows is filled with a heavy noble gas because according to (see above) #2 and #3 it make the transfer of kinetic energy very inefficient, and thus a very bad heat transfer mechanism.

            READ CAREFULLY
            It is inefficent because due to #3, heavy atoms of gas have very little velocity.
            … and for the gas elements that are heavier, thus slower, #4 dominates over #1.

            That is why you don’t need to worry about radon on the second floor of a house.

            Or why you should really be asking, how did the cesium get here and what did it travel with?

            It was released from the corium with a fruit salad of the corium.

            🙂 So with all the equipment you have used, the most super fandago detector used on your whole body can’t give you a NORM background rate, they just say “normal, nothng to detect” you should be very concerned.

            I think the US navy upper management always wants to have a machismo pissing contest to show there equipment will work in the next war scenario. I think they did an experiment to show the equipment would work in the next time of war by cruising directly through the fallout clould. After all, what other chance would there be for a full fleet test, and think of the sales and bragging rights by United technologies, GE, the shipyard and everyone else when they say our equipment can withstand a nuclear fallout environment. Unfortunately nobody thinks past the money to see what might happen to the people when murphy’s law kicks in.

          • D

            David McFarlandMar 25, 2016 at 10:04 am

            I’m going to go a different route. Instead of explaining why you’re wrong, since you’re going to ignore 90% of what I say anyway, I’m going to have you explain why you’re wrong. Obviously I need to delve deeper into what you actually do know.

            Why does it make any difference how the cesium got there? Why wouldn’t we be able to detect it? Why wouldn’t we be able to detect radiation, no matter the source?

            What are you even trying to argue here?

            Bonus question: Why is a scintillation detector normally not used in common practice? Why is a Geiger-Muller preferred?

          • M

            Michael MannMar 19, 2016 at 4:11 pm

            Look at the content “Obviously a nuke pimp, as was stated, he used the banana lie right out of the gate and when he tried to backtrack he refused to identify the difference between radioactive potassium and radioactive stronthium. The devil is in the details, that why his statements read like a glossy brochure and he refuses to discuss details. Notice the “all american icon” for him ;)” Maybe he never heard of “stonthium” either.. when you attempt to make a point about “details” , the least you could do is use a real element or learn to spell…It’s a loser with no knowledge who uses the “shill gambit” or do you actually that believe anyone with actual knowledge must be a shill?

          • M

            Michael MannMar 19, 2016 at 4:41 pm

            Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?

          • L

            ltsnyderMar 19, 2016 at 4:45 pm

            You mean like when David McFarland and his buddies do some full body radiation calculations and decide the radiation is not dangerous, right?

            LOL, looks like you gave up on the topic all together now.

          • M

            Michael MannMar 19, 2016 at 4:48 pm

            TEDE is TEDE no matter the source. You obviously suffer from Dunning -Kruger, fortunately it can be cured with education.

          • D

            David McFarlandMar 19, 2016 at 2:42 pm

            Slander all you like, Itsnyder. I could go about calling you a shill for Big Oil or Big Coal, but they’d have prepared you better if you were actually getting paid. You’d actually have an argument and content to go with.

            No, your arguments read more like someone who thinks seven minutes of finding the smallest argument he likes on Google beats seven years worth of operational experience with the safest nuclear organization on Earth and finest nuclear education on Earth on the matter. Your dialogue reads more like a fool who doesn’t know the difference between contamination and radiation. Your dialogue reads like a heartless fool who cares more about the average of 4 mrem received from the fallout rather than the tens of thousands of lives lost during the Great Kanto Earthquake.
            “The banana lie.” Yes, the BED is not an entirely accurate measure when you get down to the science of it. Yet it remains, however, pertinent to the matter. It is a fine enough example for the common man who doesn’t understand nuclear power. Which is why I use it. It’s a simple concept used to describe a complex notion. Heck, K-40’s beta emitted has even twice the power of a Strontium-90’s beta.
            I don’t expect you to understand nuclear power. I expect you to trust the experts on it.
            I find it rather odd. You wouldn’t go questioning a doctor with seven years of experience when he gives you a diagnosis. You wouldn’t even have the gall to question his specific field of study. Yet you question me and everything I say, even when I flat out tell you my field of study is, quite specifically, Reactor Safety and Protection.

            But, fine, if you’d like me to cease condescending to you, I’ll give you a much more accurate comparison than use of bananas.
            Let’s talk about radon, the nasty little gas. It tends to pop up in larger quantities where more earth is exposed, and there are a few more variables. Mines, basements, mountains. Then there are these nasty things called “Temperature Inversions.” Basically pockets where cold air traps warm air. These happen most in valleys, where the ground tends to assist the process. Radon continues to seep out of the earth into these pockets, but is unable to escape as the pocket is trapped. They continue going about emitting radiation – alphas, the most harmful of all radiation should it enter the human body – as they decay, as do the subsequent daughter isotopes which are likewise unstable (some emit betas, too). But why do I mention this? Because you want a better comparison. Let’s talk about places that get lots of radon and temperature inversions. Say, Denver Colorado. They receive about twice the average background radiation as anyone else in the world at 20-40 counts per minute. Japan, despite it’s mountain chain, only gets half the average background radiation at 10-20 counts per minute on average. Why does this matter?
            Because it proves one silly little thing: With only 4mrem additional exposure during the event- which is a measure of actual damage to the human body- additional from the fallout of Fukushima, the vast majority of Japan still had a lower radiation levels than Denver, Colorado, at the exact same time. Which I verified, personally, which I assume is more than you can say.

            Itsnyder, you may be surprised to know that I was, at one point in time, worried about my exposure levels during Fukushima. I was not far south of the incident in retrospect – I was on the Tokyo Bay – , and several plumes washed over where I was, and where my ship’s sister-ship was (the Ronald Reagan). We did a lot of analysis, and our ships even coordinated disaster response with the Fukushima site. I myself helped with the radiation surveys on the flight deck – which is about the worse case scenario, as the non-skid on the flight deck is quite prone to trapping such particulate. I was seeing higher counts than I’d ever seen before in my life, the only time I’d ever really seen notable contamination outside of a reactor compartment itself. For an hour or two, I was a bit worried; I didn’t know what to think. Then my colleagues and I realized something – we could figure it all out. We had the equations necessary and we’d been analyzing to see what we were getting. We make worst-case scenario assumptions where we had gaps in knowledge and we still found out one astounding thing: While working in close proximity to hot-spots where contaminated had collected, we were still getting remarkably low exposure levels.
            Have you ever taken radiation surveys, let alone ever held a Geiger-counter? Have you ever fixed a scintillation detector? Have you ever performed the math to figure out how much exposure you got?

            Your argument is misguided. You should be attacking all the governors who irresponsibly allow their citizens to live in dangerous, radioactive mountainous areas or near old mines. Those are the real dangers.
            Of course I jest, but they are seriously worse than reactors. Even coal plants are – you get three times as much exposure from them than you do a nuclear reactor. Heck, coal still did more to irradiate people worldwide than Fukushima did when it had plumes of contamination leaking from it.

          • L

            ltsnyderMar 19, 2016 at 3:17 pm

            “Then my colleagues and I realized something…- we could figure it all out…”

            Well actually no, that’s where the devil in the details is …..

            Using a Geiger counter and a scintillation detector is a horrible way to determine long term exposure effects. It is a military way to determine if you are about to suffer acute radiation sickness due to full body exposure.

            No one should live in an airplane or a basement filled with radon there are plenty of radioactively toxic areas you should never be in.

            If you see the background baseline suddenly double or triple like you did, you should be very concerned.

            The problem is, is that it is “fallout”, that IS how it got on your flight deck, these are micro particles, in Tokyo they are being detected in air filters, and your lungs are getting a fair deposit of these hot particles. The existence of these particles ending up in such close proximity to your cells (i.e. hot particles in the lungs) creates a whole new calculation that must be done on long term outcome 5 – 50 years down the road. It no longer IS a external full body exposure calculation (that you and your buddies made).

            if you search “Shocking Tokyo Japan Radiation Test by Chris Busby” you will get a much better view on determining long term danger.

            As far as you being part of the safest nuclear organization, let’s not forget they started by pushing barrels of the waste overboard for disposal.

          • M

            Michael MannMar 19, 2016 at 4:51 pm

          • L

            ltsnyderMar 19, 2016 at 5:00 pm

            Like I said, you have given up on discussing the topic, at this point it is time for you to character assassinate, but you better get out the machine-gun, because you’re gonna need it.




          • S

            Sam GilmanMar 19, 2016 at 6:10 pm

            Hi Itsnyder,

            I’ve been doing an informal survey of people who believe the sort of things that Chris Busby writes.

            In 2020, the Olympics are coming to Japan – to Tokyo, in fact. The world’s media will descend and broadcast live and uncensored (they can do that now anyway, but the Olympics will give wall to wall coverage).

            This will be 9 years after the radiation releases. If the world’s media don’t find people dropping dead in the streets from radiation, will you admit that you were wrong?

          • L

            ltsnyderMar 20, 2016 at 6:17 am

            OMG, I just detected a schill, this article is over 2 years old, and with in an hour of posting an attack, the above post already has 7 likes. Don’t like yourself infront of others, it is kind of unseemly.

            “people dropping dead in the streets from radiation” huh? Do you know absolutley anything about radiation exposure? When have you seen anyone drop dead in the street from smoking? It is still, very very real, you really need to go back to radiation 101.

          • S

            Sam GilmanMar 21, 2016 at 8:43 am

            OK, so I’ll let you define the effects and what the media should find.

            What will they find in 2020?

            (Oh, and you should learn how Disqus works: I turned up here because someone I “follow” commented here.)

          • D

            David McFarlandMar 19, 2016 at 8:16 pm

            Long term effects are best determined by figuring out what radiation you’re receiving. That’s rather easy if you know what energy levels each particle of radiation you’re receiving is. If only we had a way to do that. Oh, wait, we do. And I even had the pleasure of getting to stand inside of one of those giant detectors for 10-15 minutes to ascertain that no, I hadn’t received anywhere near enough to be concerned, no, my watch did not use an iridium face, I wasn’t a smoker, and had a bit of a potassium deficiency at the time.
            So, I do know what I got additionally. What stayed in my body. Internal and external dose, long term and short term.
            Also, do you know what a “biological half-life” is? That’s rather important to your argument.
            It might interest you that no, caesium, the element truly of concern in this matter as it was the prevalent radioactive element we found – wasn’t about to affect me 5-50 years down the road with a buildup of radiation. In fact, 71 days after I last ingested the last atom of caesium, it was all out of my system. And the amount so little, it would have been more harmful for me to be stationed in Denver.

            I wasn’t concerned what my background baseline doubled – considering that we, finally, in Japan, were getting world-average baseline radiation exposure.

            And, no, considering the half-lives of the particulate involved, and the biological halflife, no, it’s not a concern. Five years later – as you mentioned – I had to do a physical to ascertain how much exposure I’d received and if I had anything left in my system, in total. Turns out – yeah, nothing above normal levels. Before you start saying, “They’re lying to you,” part of my training as a radiation worker is to know what I’m looking at and know whether or not the radiacs I’m dealing with are, in fact, properly calibrated.

            “Barrels of waste overboard.” Cite what was in these barrels, Curie-count, and the year. Don’t spew random slander without quantitative facts. You’re dealing with a scientific matter, approach it with respect, not mindless slander. Or I could simply laugh at your “Sins of Our Fathers” argument you’re going for. I could then point you to our track record.

            I could write a book as well. It would be full of real facts, first hand accounts, but nothing horridly shocking or damning, so it probably wouldn’t sell well. People generally don’t like truth if it’s full of scientific fact and merely says, “No, don’t worry.”

            You forget something. I am a part of one of the finest trained and educated nuclear organizations on the face of this planet. We know a thing or two about this matter. We’ve been learning and modifying our practices to be more restrictive than you can possibly imagine. It’s kind of our job. Your organization knows… what? How much experience do you have with all of this?
            When do you plan on actually answering my questions?

          • L

            ltsnyderMar 20, 2016 at 6:04 am

            Look, if you are so smart on these issues, then you should be able to answer your own questions, and if you say I don’t know my stuff, why not prove it.

            *Show that my calculation for 10 grams of radium salt would not contaminate one cubic mile of water above epa safe drinking levels.
            Hint, I am wrong, but not by much, about 3/4th of a cubic mile of water.

            *You keep seeming to think a geiger counter will detect internal exposure danger, it will not, it is a good device for determining full body exposure.
            *As for the device you stood in, unless you stood in it for days, it is not going to everything, sure if you have a large grain it will detect it.

            Look, you scream, and you dedicate 80% of your post to some kind of attack.

            If you are so smart, do tell how the fallout was created, why are they small particles,. after all, this was not a nuclear bomb, it was a nuclear meltdown.

            As for why you are not impacted yet, you should be able to answer that yourself.

            As for the smoking analogy, schills do not admit that the cancer due to smoking is due to polonium deposition on the lungs, so good for you, but if I blew tabacco smoke on a flight deck, it would not raise the background rad level one iota.

            In chernoyble there were workers that breathed in the vaporized fallout in massive doses and never died of it.

            George Burns was a walking talking advertisement for smoking cigars till he died at 100, that does not make smoking right.

            The statistics are easily calculated and are showing up.
            Here are some for Thyroid cancer only …


          • D

            David McFarlandAug 23, 2015 at 9:48 am

            Got to love conspiracy theorists and anti-[anything]s. You ask them questions and never answer them. Then, when you fail to answer one question properly, they jump down your throat.

            The second you prove you know more than they do and can head them off at every turn, they flail and start claiming, “You’re getting paid to say this!,” or “You’re part of the conspiracy / [thing they are against]-industry!” Never being specific about anything.

            So, PacE, let’s get down to the nitty-gritty and get some scientific answers from you, for once:

            I’ll repost a fraction of the things you’ve avoided to answer.

            Do you even know how a nuclear reactor actually works? (FYI, you’re trusted source – Wikipedia – does.)
            Talk to me about all of the shielding between someone living outside of a
            nuclear power plant and inside the plant itself, since you obviously know SO
            MUCH about it.
            Talk to me about all of the precautions taken by nuclear
            power plants, all of the considerations put into place, all of the
            self-imposed limits. You’re obviously the expert.
            Tell me about what
            levels are actually harmful.
            Tell me about what MY limits are for working on a nuclear power plant.
            How many Americans have died from nuclear power, and what is the commonly rumored reason for it? (Have you been paying attention? I’ve even said this one already).
            Most common emission from nuclear power plants?
            Extra credit! Name two uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide in nuclear power plants.

            We’re all waiting for you, PacE. I’ve refuted enough of your claims and answered your questions. Lets see you answer *any* of mine. And you’re lucky! All of my test questions in nuclear power are long-answer questions! I gave you easy short answer questions.

          • P

            PacEAug 23, 2015 at 12:35 pm

            you couldn’t even keep beta and alpha straight.

            2) all the shielding is a farce, they pimp out 8″ reactor steel walls, and then put 100 holes in it. They release radiation as a normal operating procedure
            3) precaution by plants: soup up em and run em till they blow, because we don’t have enough money to shut them down.
            4) What levels are harmful? That a pretty broad question. Even background is harmful, so any additional is more harmful.
            6) I dont know military limits, my beef is with civilian power.
            7) several 10’s of millions, due to radiation and heavy metals.
            8) Overly broad, but I would say lies, coverups, heat, and tritium
            9) Spinning turbines and cooling
            10) Sendai is a PWR, Fuku is a BWR

            In fact you have not refuted any of my point, banana man.

          • D

            David McFarlandAug 24, 2015 at 3:48 pm

            2) All those holes in the secondary shielding are for cables or tubing which also adds a shielding factor to compensate for the hole. Most are small and many use a zigzag pattern. Ergo, still shielded. If you want to continue refuting that, why don’t you explain how a pressure vessel that can in some reactors take hundreds or thousands of pounds of pounds of pressure isn’t shielded. You blatantly know nothing about the concept of shielding.

            3) Not even close to what I was asking, but I get a feeling you wouldn’t know anyway. But just for fun, I meant safety measures. Try again.
            3a) How the hell is a reactor going to explode? Please, enlighten me.

            4) Theoretically.

          • P

            PacEAug 21, 2015 at 12:25 pm

            Bananas are healthful, radiation and heavy metals are not.

          • D

            David McFarlandAug 21, 2015 at 4:17 pm

            The point is all about numbers. The radiation you get from bananas is so small (similar to how small the amount of radiation you get from a reactor is) that the benefits are great and the body is able to compensate for the damage. Turns out the body can kill cancerous cells. Turns out a lot of cancerous cells kill themselves before they divide. Also turns out that becoming cancerous is only a tiny fraction of cell interaction with radiation does.

            You know what’s more damaging to the body than living near a reactor? Being out in the sun. Eating Brazil nuts. Living in a valley, basement, cement, or brick house.
            You can do the measurements really easily. Guys on the flight deck of my carrier get more radiation dose than I do down in the reactor areas. Turns out water and steel make good shields.

          • P

            PacEAug 21, 2015 at 7:24 pm

            David, I am not convinced you are Navy nuke, but if you are, I say good job, I am not against Navy nuke, they do a great job.

            As far as civilian nuclear power goes, it is a joke, a travesty, the most expensive way to poison ourselves. And stop with the banana lie….humans regulate potassium to remain the same, no matter how many bananas I eat will not change my dose one bit.

            dont be a pimp for nuke in general, civilian reactors are passed any sense of making sense.

          • D

            David McFarlandAug 21, 2015 at 11:09 pm

            Most American civilian plants are run by a lot of Ex-Navy Nukes. It’s part of the reason why America has such a good safety record. There was at least one American civilian plant that refused to higher ex-Navy-Nukes because we don’t get a degree. After their safety record turned to crap, the DoE forced them to allow hiring ex-Nukes without degrees.

            As far as bananas – yes, it won’t change your dose. No argument about that. However, you will still get a dose. That potassium you’re consuming still gives you a dose. Having them in your house still gives you a dose. A truckload of them will still set off sensors designed to detect nuclear bombs at a border crossing.

            I don’t see why you wouldn’t believe my job claim, my Facebook is open to all to see, a quick scan of my photos is all you need, but whatever, I guess you hate researching anything, so, whatever.

          • A

            atomikrabbitAug 22, 2015 at 8:48 am

            “one American civilian plant that refused to higher ex-Navy-Nukes”

            David – I agree with 99% of what you say, but I’ve been in this business since 1980 and have never heard of that. Do you know which plant that was, and what year?

            Also, as I’m sure you know, the NRC (and prior to 1975, AEC) regulates US commercial plants, not DOE.

          • D

            David McFarlandAug 22, 2015 at 10:15 am

            Sorry, I don’t, and as far as NRC vice DoE, that was a slip of memory again. I don’t get a whole lot of interaction with either as we deal with NR. It may have also been rather early on.

          • M

            Michael MannAug 22, 2015 at 10:27 am

            I was Power School class of 8001

          • D

            David McFarlandAug 23, 2015 at 12:32 am

            Pretty sure I was 0905 for both Power school and Prototype. It always seems like all the guys older than me always remember and I’m just here like, “Ummm. 0905?” I know A-school was 0908MT.

          • M

            Michael MannAug 23, 2015 at 3:21 am

            I only remember because it was the first class of 1980, if it wasn’t, I probably wouldn’t remember either….I don’t remember boot camp number/ A-school or C-school and they all had class numbers….Thank you for taking the time to comment!

          • D

            David McFarlandAug 23, 2015 at 9:01 am

            I (sadly) do remember my boot camp class (950) because they managed to make our number fit well into the motivational chants they had us do during PT.

          • A

            atomikrabbitAug 22, 2015 at 10:42 am

            When you get out, if you still want to stay in nuclear power, there are some good careers waiting for you – about a third of the current workforce is ready to retire.

            Of course, we’ll have to unlearn you some of that Navy reactor theory that only applies to HEU – and then there’s that magical chemical shim, boron. And if you go to a boiler, you’ll find that that reactor power DOESN’T follow steam demand!

          • D

            David McFarlandAug 23, 2015 at 12:35 am

            Everything I’ve ever known is a lie!!
            I’m sure I’ll be able to wrap my head around it.
            Though, actually, my future plans are to work for SpaceX after I get out (I’ll probably be going and teaching Prototype at Charleston next.) My end goal is to try to get in on any Spaceborne Nuclear Reactor projects that are going on.

          • A

            atomikrabbitAug 23, 2015 at 6:18 am

            Most of it will still be valid – some of the guys I work with were instructors at Ballston, and they’ve made the transition well.

            As far as reactors in space, although there were a few of the SNAP series decades ago, most of the space nuclear energy these days is coming from RTGs, which powers the Mars Rovers and the New Horizons probe to Pluto. That work involves Np237 extraction and subsequent Pu238 production, and is done at Savannah River and Idaho National Lab. Reactors in earth orbit have become politically incorrect, partly because of the radiophobia you see on display here.

            Regardless of your future path, good luck, and non illegitimus carborundum!

          • A

            atomikrabbitAug 23, 2015 at 3:32 pm

            If you are interested in space reactors, you might like this history of the SNAP program, which shows what US technologists were capable of in the early 1960s:

            (modified to avoid moderation jail)

    • L

      loreliFeb 28, 2014 at 2:54 pm

      David, I say feel free to eat all the Pacific fish you want. That keeps the prices on the Atlantic fish low 🙂 I wish you luck.

    • T

      tomsebournApr 28, 2015 at 1:14 pm

      So cesium-137 and bananas are both good for you? Potassium is something needed by the body so David McFarland, are you saying that the body needs cesium-137 too? Cesium-137 = potassium?

      • D

        David McFarlandApr 28, 2015 at 5:02 pm

        I never said they are equivalent, nor that caesium is good for you, so quit trying to put words in my mouth. I said their contamination levels were equivalent, and that 1 Tuna steak of a contaminated Tuna will net you a similar exposure as a banana. The point is that no one freaks out about bananas, and yet they, too, are radioactive.

        However, according to the Radiation Hormesis model, up to 1 REM of acute radiation exposure could actually be beneficial to the human body, as 1 REM is what the body is capable of counteracting the effects of, an underneath that level the body will still react in a similar manner, but will have less to fight off from the radiation exposure and will help to fight against disease or already present cancers and the like.
        So maybe the body does need caesium.

        Okay, that was a bit of sarcasm, heavy metals are obviously not the way to go if we end up verifying that a certain amount of radiation is beneficial and should be administered.

        • F

          FLZMay 19, 2015 at 9:55 am

          Maybe I don’t quite get what you said David – I don’t believe you fully answered Tom’s question:
          I concede potassium may be slightly radioactive but it’s naturally occurring. I don’t believe you could deem potassium and Cesium-137, freshly from a nuclear meltdown, are thus equivalent, just based on their comparable radioactive levels. There must be more physics traits that differentiate them which would warrant our attention.

          Plus it’s been over 4 years. What are the contamination levels now? It’s a very valid question taking into account the accumulative effects and TEPCO’s containment efforts have been nothing but failures.

        • F

          Frank EnergyAug 18, 2015 at 11:08 pm

          funny… are US military, but use the archaic and UK spelling for cesium? wow

          • D

            David McFarlandAug 19, 2015 at 8:01 am

            … So? What, you think we regulate how we spell words that are not in common usage? With our reactors we don’t deal with cesium a lot. I’ve spelled it both ways on multiple sites.

          • F

            Frank EnergyAug 19, 2015 at 10:14 am

            You look kind of British too. What ship did you say you serve on?

          • D

            David McFarlandAug 19, 2015 at 9:41 pm

            I’m Scotts-Irish and Germanic by descent.

            USS George Washington. Until recently homeported in Japan.*

            *: It’s confusing right now. But besides the point.

          • M

            Michael MannAug 22, 2015 at 9:15 am

            David McFarland, I was a Navy Nuke, specifically an RO,onboard the USS Skipjack and USS Graying, I am now an I&C technician at the R.E. Ginna nuclear power plant, thank you for your service!. PacE is Frank Energy and they both are aliases of NukPro who sends people to his personal blogspot as a matter of course.

    • B

      Brian DonovanNov 3, 2015 at 5:41 pm

      There’s a massive die off happening in the pacific.

      didn’t ya notice?

      There’s no Pu in bananas. In fact there’s lot’s of stuff in reactor waste that we don’t countertenor natural in an significant amounts.

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

      Nuclear fans claim all radiation is the same. As is an ingested alpha
      emitter has the same probability of causing cancers as a gamma
      emitter. They won’t even discuss the problems with particles of
      radioactive materials such as we get from out tow big nuclear

      Cancers start small, 100 microns or so. A Gamma emitter will mostly
      pass right through you, and isolated individual interaction with
      flesh will have little effect.

      an ingested Alpha emitter’s radiation travel only 100 microns before
      being 100% absorbed.
      of alpha from plutonium particle.

      want to compare it to background and natural radiation, yet they seem
      to forget that background radiation causes million of cancers per
      year according to the EPA. You want to add more death? Is it ok if
      it’s just 1-3% more deaths? 1-3% is the resolution of epidemiology
      studies. Lawyers like that.

      are constantly exposed to the radiation from nuclear power. The
      billion of tons of powdered toxic tailings,the contaminate billions
      of gallons of water used for mining, routine emissions from reactors
      that have proven to increase cancer rates around reactors, the world
      changing nuclear disasters, and the million year wastes.

      may already be too late, Fukushima may be killing the pacific ocean,
      with the unprecedented die offs happening just as the main
      radioactive ocean plume arrives on the west cost of the Americas.

  • B

    BarryJan 29, 2014 at 6:30 am

    Seals that are eating radiated fish are also dying and loaded with open lesions! Forget what people are saying about Pacific Ocean currents! Radiation contaminated fish and related sea food critters swim from Fukushima to the West coast of the United States and Canada much faster then contaminated ocean currents travel! Since TEPCO continues to dump millions and millions of gallons of radiation contaminated waste every single day non stop, this build up and spread of radiation in our fish, sea life and animals that also eat the fish as we do will continue to build up as well! The food chain will without question multiply the radiation as larger fish and animals such as seals eat more contaminated smaller fish! Soon more and more humans will end up eating highly radioactive fish, crabs and shell fish and they will get sick most likely with one type of cancer or another! This is really happening folks! If you feel that you may have been radiated by Pacific fish or sea food and you would like to detox the radiation from your body do your research for the key word Zeolite! Zeolite in a mineral that is proven to safely remove radiation and heavy metals from the body! Please know that Potassium Iodide does not remove any radiation from the body! It only protects the thyroid for 24 hours and it has to be taken before becoming radiated! Zeolite is the best answer for removing radiation!

    • D

      David McFarlandJan 29, 2014 at 1:23 pm

      That’s interesting, considering here along the Tokyo Bay, we’re still seeing record lows in radiation levels (20cpm vs. 50cpm of the world average), including in the water, and the fish continue to prove to be less radioactive than your average banana. Well, at least per Tuna-Steak (which, tuna are the larger predatory fish you’re talking about.)

      As for me, before I move from Japan back to the States, I’m going to keep getting my fill of sushi. And just for kicks, I’ll keep doing radiation surveys on myself. I’ve got plenty of access to radiacs (aka gieger counters)

      • B

        BarryJan 29, 2014 at 3:35 pm

        Give it a little more time and your sushi may be your ticket back home for chemotherapy.

        • D

          David McFarlandJan 31, 2014 at 10:08 am

          That’d be interesting.
          Especially as I’ve actually been regularly surveying myself (just for fun and making sure I can continue to say on websites like this that I have been), along with having gotten internal dose investigations, and you know what? I’m still fine.
          Like when I surveyed myself two weeks ago. Yeah, I was fine.

          I actually did it several times because I was on watch with two different radiacs for six hours straight and had little else to do at the time.

          Unlike the author of the article, I actually know what I’m talking about. I should hope so – I’ve been working on nuclear power plants for years as a nuclear operator. I’m a qualified Radiation Worker and did some of the surveys in our area during Fukushima.

          • B

            BarryJan 31, 2014 at 11:35 am

            So you took Homer Simpson’s Job! Don’t get radiated when eating s doughnut

          • D

            David McFarlandJan 31, 2014 at 5:35 pm

            Don’t get around to thinking it’s anything like the Simpsons… and we aren’t allowed to eat food in the plant.

            And radiation levels in the plant area actually lower than being out in the sun (we have THAT much shielding.)

            Also, it wouldn’t matter if you did eat food in the plant, because that doughnuts only going to have been irradiated. Not contaminated. There is a difference (a big one). The doughnut isn’t going to be radioactive if it’s irradiated (unless you start making it with heavy metals, even then it’d still be safer to eat than a banana – unless of course you eat a doughnut that’s been in a radioactive area for a considerable amount of time). It isn’t contaminated either – unless you take that doughnut into the Reactor Compartment itself (where you aren’t allowed to be when operating) and then start rubbing it on every surface.

          • B

            BarryJan 31, 2014 at 5:49 pm

            OK You must be Homer if you think that those doughnuts of yours that your always eating in the control room are really food! They must be loaded with heavy metals Homer because they sit in your gut like lead! Right?

          • D

            David McFarlandJan 31, 2014 at 6:08 pm

            Was that even an argument? I really have no idea what you’re saying. You’re trying to make a parallel between me and a fictional cartoon.

            You’re actually trying to use a cartoon as an argument. Really?

            Doughnuts count as food. They may not be nutritious, but that is by no means the point of not eating “food” in the reactor plant. It’s about physically ingesting anything – we aren’t allowed to do it in the even there was a spill which could have contaminated something it touched. Chances are about as slim as getting hit by lightning, but it’s a precaution.

            Also “doughnuts of mine?” When did I ever say I actually did eat doughnuts enough to have doughnuts of my own? Really? You’re trying to make that argument? That was all your assumption.

            How are you calling me “homer” in this case? Is it the only way you can justify arguing with someone who operates reactors? Theres also a lot more to operating reactors than just sitting at a control panel – out of the eighteen different watchstations we have, only five involve sitting down. The others are specifically NOT to sit down.

            And I was talking about heavy metals only to make the statement that an irradiated doughnut isn’t going to be radioactive – the only stipulation would be that it’d be a regular doughnut (which is quite reasonable) and that it COULD be radioactive if you did something crazy like add in rather heavy metals. (Not necessarily physically dense like lead, considerably higher than that quite typically – those which actually have more stable yet radioactive isotopes).

          • B

            BarryJan 31, 2014 at 6:31 pm

            Oh Homer! You really don’t get it do you? Maybe your like a defective isotope. Unstable!

          • D

            David McFarlandJan 31, 2014 at 9:00 pm

            Get what? Your entire argument is “lol cartoons,” moron. What makes you think my job is anything like Homers? You have no idea what goes on inside a nuclear power plant.

            You probably think uranium glows green, too.

          • B

            beansJan 31, 2014 at 9:48 pm

            this is crap, I may just be a ignorant waitress, I swore this site was about radiation and not donuts and fuckin cartoons. A little hint, lets have some facts. I am slightly worried about our future. Smarty pants please set your ego aside and let us here the facts. Theorist please keep bringin on your side. Therefore i can make judgement for my self. Oh smarty pants please dont respond with a snotty comment. I just want the truth thx

          • D

            David McFarlandFeb 1, 2014 at 5:51 am

            That was more of me feeling the need to get in the last word with someone trying to make the assumption that the job was anything like being Homer Simpson.

            So facts: Tuna (a predatory fish, fitting the “contamination will scale up as fish eat other fish, idea), had on average 15 becquerels of contamination per 100kg of meat – Cs-137, specifically, the isotope of concern, as of 2013.
            This was on average – some had considerable more, some had less.
            (A becquerel is one radioactive decay per second. Considering how small this is, compare it to counting the volume of a beach by individual grains of sand.)

            What this scales down to, if you want to talk about how dangerous it is: Bananas (which are not the most radioactive food, just a wonderful comparison).

            While Bananas make for an argument that is, well, bananas, it’s a valid one and just points out how people get freaked out over what they have no knowledge of, simply because someone else says it’s dangerous.
            Bananas have ~15 becquerels of K-40. This is sufficient that banana-trucks can set off radiation detectors at border crossings and nuclear operators are advised to not eat them prior to having internal monitoring.

            Do all the fancy math, and you get down to one-tuna steak equaling one-banana, more or less, when it comes to radiation.

            The contaminated water is even less of a concern – if you felt like trying over a years-worth of unfiltered seawater from California shores, you’d again be getting as much radiation dose to your body as a single banana.

            Yes, the “Banana Equivelant Dose” is no longer used (nor was it used all that much to begin with) because it’s a little wonky, but bananas remain relevant enough.

          • B

            beansFeb 1, 2014 at 6:39 am

            Thank you so much for your response. I appreciate the amount of knowledge you are sharing with us. Like most things I try to have an open mind and facts over opinion make that possible. If your still working near the facility, could you please tell someone to clean up there mess. haha. again thank you for responding to my questions.

          • C

            ChewbirdFeb 5, 2014 at 4:19 pm

            David, on this you are wrong. No Cs 137 was found. Leave the science to me please.


          • D

            David McFarlandFeb 5, 2014 at 8:38 pm

            We DID find Cs-137. On very rare occasion, we’re STILL finding it in nooks and crannies in ventilation ducts that didn’t get cleaned. Not much.

            But we did find it over here in Japan. That’s a fact.
            Leave the science to me and my coworkers – who held the radiacs over here in the Tokyo Bay area during Fukushima. We did the measurements ourselves. I know I’m not wrong – I saw it. With my own two eyes.

          • F

            Frank EnergyAug 18, 2015 at 11:11 pm

            “leave the science to us” oh my how precious…….

          • F

            Frank EnergyAug 19, 2015 at 10:17 am

            Yeah, he does lots of testing, but has no data, hmmmmm

            i been asking him for data. He dodges

          • B

            beansJan 31, 2014 at 9:54 pm

            This is probably dumb but does radiation attract to metal. or were you saying that metal itself is radioactive. because if its attracted to metal then wouldnt it be attracted to mercury in the fish?

          • D

            David McFarlandFeb 1, 2014 at 5:43 am

            (I don’t expect anyone to know anything about radiation or contamination, just not to talk about it like they do if they have no knowledge of it – that you admit flaws in your argument lends you to being more intelligent than most people in this comment section.)

            Heavier elements are more likely to produce isotopes that are radioactive – and more likely to produce isotopes that are going to last longer (ergo, remain radioactive for a longer time), and ones at higher energies (therefore more dangerous).
            That’s what I meant by that. Radiation isn’t attracted by anything more than another thing. (Except for Beta-radiation, which is made of electrons and positrons, so it’s more readily attracted to ionized particle – betas are also typically not radiation to worry about, as your skin will protect you, so long as you don’t consume beta-emitter contamination).

          • F

            Frank EnergyAug 19, 2015 at 10:19 am

            Your skin will NOT protect you from beta, that will penetrate several centimeters. Please respond.

          • D

            David McFarlandAug 19, 2015 at 9:39 pm

            *Your skin will protect you from betas emitted from those elements found in nuclear power fission products and their decay daughters.

          • P

            PacEAug 20, 2015 at 9:00 am

            You best go back to school, you aren’t one of those that cheated on the test are you?

            while cobalt-60 (310 keV), caesium-137 (550 keV), phosphorus-32 (1.71 MeV), strontium-90 (650 keV) and its daughter product yttrium-90 (2.3 MeV) damage deeper levels of the dermis and can result in chronic radiation dermatitis.

            Sheesh, this is basic stuff McF


          • D

            David McFarlandAug 20, 2015 at 10:38 am

            My apologies, I was getting my “reasons-why-you-shouldn’t-worry-about-this,” mixed up. Betas are stopped by clothes and low-energy betas are stopped by skin, alphas are stopped by dead skin. So unless you decide to run around naked, betas aren’t a big concern.
            Good thing I’m not an ELT.

            Also, better do some research on what that test is. It’s the Watch Supervisor test (and it was only the watch supervisor test), and they cheated on the test, not on their Oral Boards (I don’t even know how you’d cheat on an Oral board, considering the only thing you’ve got to work with is a whiteboard and markers and you’re getting quized) which is the real “pass/fail” and encompasses a massive amount of reactor operations, of which radiation is a very, very, very tiny portion of.
            And no, I have never qualified Watch Supervisor.

            The information we’re discussing is usually only covered when initially qualifying Radiation Worker, and typically can be covered in depth, far more in depth than what we’re discussing here, in about two days of class. Keep in mind that our training school is 18 months if you take it straight through with no stopping, along with another 18 months of on-the-job-training at your first sea command.

            So, sorry I forgot the “basics.” I’ve not had to worry about it for quite some time, instead I’ve had to worry about reactor physics, principles, integrated reactor operation, casualty procedures, reactor safety maintenance, et cetera. You know, things you know nothing about. I suppose you’ll fault me for forgetting a fair portion of my Spanish and history classes as well. I have to use them about as much as I have to worry about betas and alphas.

          • P

            PacEAug 20, 2015 at 12:17 pm

            Ya, you forgot the basics, and have no data, but come here to insult and lecture us on how safe nuclear is. Got it.

          • D

            David McFarlandAug 20, 2015 at 10:06 pm

            As far as nuclear power being safe, let’s pretend for a second we
            DON’T want to build 40-50 year old designs that have failed and want to
            build newer, awesome designs that blow my mind every time I hear about how awesome they are and how they defy a lot of the safety-culture with new concepts like, “yeah, oh, by the way, this is physically impossible to melt down.”

            Again, my testimony would be admissible in court. Yours is… what, nonexistent? It’s not hard to find my facebook and figure out that I was there.
            Most people on your side of the argument don’t even know the difference between radiation and contamination. I forgot the difference between reasons why Betas and Alphas aren’t exactly an issue until ingested. The only guy it the entire Anti-Nuclear field who understands as much as a VAST amount of the Pro-Nuclear camp is Arnie Gunderson. You aren’t exactly in good company.
            You’re talking about the basics of one small sliver of nuclear power. So small by comparison, we had it combined into one class, “Chemical, Materials, Radiological,” or CMR. If you think that me forgetting one small bit of information that I never use (I last had it presented to me in a classroom setting 4.5 years ago, the fact that I was able to spot my own error after I was told I was wrong should be good enough for you) is proof enough that I don’t have a leg to stand on, I find that rather laughable.

            When you can talk to me in theory about nuclear safety, safety culture, et cetera, get back to me. Until then, educate yourself.

          • C

            ChewbirdFeb 5, 2014 at 4:18 pm

            David, screw all this losers. I already explained that there is even no radioactive waters leaking. This is zionist media stirring up things. The same criminal that are guilty of 911 ! Glad you and I are on the same page. Next they will falsely claim that tuna has been caught in California with cesium ! What crap.

          • D

            David McFarlandFeb 5, 2014 at 8:36 pm

            I actually wouldn’t doubt people catching Tuna off the coast of California with Cesium – just no more harmful levels of it than how much the potassium in your average banana or brazil nut could harm you. We know for a fact that cesium entered the ocean via airborne plumes back in 2011, and that the Cs-137 hasn’t all decayed.

          • F

            Frank EnergyAug 18, 2015 at 11:12 pm

            LOL the banana lie played out…might as well play the Hitler meme, wow

          • D

            David McFarlandAug 19, 2015 at 7:57 am

            The difference is that so long as you aren’t specifically using the BED, it’s still an apt comparison.
            Especially when what we saw internally was still less than what you’d get if you’d eaten a banana. While the BED itself is inaccurate, as it so happens bananas still have K-40, which emits radiation. That’s no lie.
            In truth, the reason why that fact remains true – that we got less internally than what you’d get with bananas on a consistent basis is that our internal contamination was less than what could be discerned from natural internal sources.

          • F

            Frank EnergyAug 19, 2015 at 10:21 am

            The lie is that you are pretending that bananas, which seem common, funny even, can be more dangerous than man made radio nuclides.

            I detest the radiation cartel in all its manifestations, and yet I eat bananas almost every day, because that does not increase my dose one bit.

            Trotting out the old banana lie is an insult. It shows how the radiation cartel knows that it needs to lie.

          • D

            David McFarlandAug 19, 2015 at 9:32 pm

            The lie? I’m sorry, but if you have 15 Bq from Bananas (aka, 1 average banana) its going to do a similar level of damage as, say, 10Bq of Cesium that you MIGHT find in a tuna steak from a Tuna spawning near Fukushima. (cesium emitters are about 111% as energetic as K-40, but due to radiation interaction “windows” without exact data I can’t say how much more damaging it is; it doesn’t work out to 1.11:1, necessarily.)

            The fact that you call it the “Radiation Cartel” shames your side of the argument. The wordplay is laughable.
            I could call your side the Environment Haters. Or the Technology Haters. Or the Nostalgia Pushers, but that would require people actually understanding that you’re attempting to destroy nuclear power based on 40 year old technology. You wouldn’t attack the airline industry based on 40 year old planes. Yet what people are doing these days is denying us to build new, high tech safe reactors and forcing us, through their refusal to change their lifestyle, keep older reactors online. We need new reactors. You know, reactors that weren’t built in the 60s and 70s. Which is what is failing. Most of the reactors are older than the people arguing against them. For heaven’s sake, we’ve gone from room-sized “super” computers that could add a few numbers to cell phones that can play video games that we could barely have fathomed two decades ago.
            You wouldn’t say computers are slow because the ones from the 70’s couldn’t play much more than Pong. So why are you saying nuclear power is unsafe because less than 100 people died in Chernobyl… and, oh, yeah, no one died from TMI or Fukushima.
            And yet thousands die because of coal. And no one complains about it. Because we understand it.

          • P

            PacEAug 20, 2015 at 9:34 am

            Being anti nuke is not pro coal, that is another lie of the nukist.

            We are destroying nuclear based on 70 years of lies, accidents, poisonings, and coverups.

          • L

            ltsnyderMar 19, 2016 at 1:24 pm

            LOL, Bananna lie! BS detector off the scale right now. LMFAO

          • F

            Frank EnergyAug 19, 2015 at 10:16 am

            “out in the sun” are you trying to confuse people with solar radiation? If not, why say it that way.

      • K

        Ken DeemerJan 30, 2014 at 1:24 am

        If a strong wind is coming from the north and I released smoke in the air there would be little chance you would smell the smoke if you were north of where I released it. Why is so much of the things washed away on the cost of Japan showing up on the west cost of the US?

        • D

          David McFarlandJan 31, 2014 at 10:05 am

          Of course I wouldn’t smell the smoke. But there would still be smoke particulate.
          That’s the wonderful thing about contamination – you can detect the tiniest particulate quite easily.

          And we’re still not detecting anything. The radiation levels in much of Japan are so low right now, it’d actually be rather easy to detect additional particulate coming off of Fukushima, whereas in much of America you could easily get a false-positive if you don’t have extra-special equipment and an extensive knowledge of the isotopes involved.

      • F

        Frank EnergyAug 18, 2015 at 11:09 pm

        Hilarious….doing a radiation survey on a human with a “geiger counter” sheesh, at least start to lie to the level of James Conca…

        • D

          David McFarlandAug 19, 2015 at 7:59 am

          It depends on what you’re looking for. If you’re looking for any level of surface contamination, or any level of gamma (or neutron if you attach the appropriate probe) they’re fine. Obviously it’s not going to detect internal beta or alpha.

  • T

    TimJan 29, 2014 at 6:21 am

    This is the fulfilment of God’s Wrath directly from Revelation 16:3… “and every living thing died that was in the sea.” The radation will continue to leak and soon there will be no denying the truth. And then just wait until everyone figures out where their rain water is coming from…

    • D

      David McFarlandJan 29, 2014 at 1:24 pm

      No, no it really isn’t.

      I’m a Christian – but I’m also a Nuclear Reactor Operator who currently lives on the Tokyo Bay and has access to radiacs and eats the fish here.
      So, yeah, no it’s not. It doesn’t meet the criteria from a biblical or a radiological standpoint by a longshot.

      • S

        stevenbejesusFeb 1, 2014 at 12:49 am

        A ship traveld from hawai 2 days ago ,they said they only saw in 3000 miles was 1 dying whale and the sea was void of life no birds dolfins paid or not post will bring life back., the pacific is now steril.. the bible is accurate

      • G

        Gamma MKS-05May 25, 2014 at 2:24 pm

        Blaaah blah blah blah blaaah… reading this blog/conversation has been quite laughable ! People can argue and debate all they want, the indisputable fact remains that a catastrophic amount of sea life is winding up dead all over the pacific ocean and along the pacific coastal shores ! I choose to believe what I see with my own eyes… not opinion or educated guesses or even you’re own scientific surveys especially since you work at nuclear power plant ! People think and believe what they want regardless of the truth or the facts ! Me, I believe what I see with my own eyes… seems to be the most logical and inteligent option at least if you’re not a Leming with your
        head buried in the land of ignorance !

  • M

    MarkJan 28, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    • G

      Gamma MKS-05May 25, 2014 at 2:33 pm

      Blaaah blah blah blah blaaah… reading this blog/conversation has
      been quite laughable ! People can argue and debate all they want, the indisputable fact remains that a catastrophic amount of sea life is
      winding up dead all over the pacific ocean and along the pacific coastal shores ! I choose to believe what I see with my own eyes… not opinion or educated guesses or even you’re own scientific surveys
      especially since you work at nuclear power plant ! People think and believe what they want regardless of the truth or the facts ! Me, I believe what I see with my own eyes… seems to be the most
      logical and intelligent option at least if you’re not a Lemming with your head buried in the land of ignorance !

  • G

    GRLCowanJan 27, 2014 at 2:22 pm

    The government per se may not be releasing specific numbers, but I seem to recall the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution ( is.

    Chris Mah, “one of the world’s leading experts on starfish and echinoderms”, talks about the apparent unrelatedness of their troubles to Fukushima at

    The radiation leaking from Japan never posed, and never could have posed, any threat. It would be like the Titanic’s saltshakers threatening to salt the ocean. Well, of course, they *did*; but there was a lot of salt there already. It’s the same with radioactivity.

    • T

      Thomas SchoenbergerJan 27, 2014 at 6:29 pm

      Deep Sea News is a bit too extreme for me. Too much voodoo science. They are not taken seriously by true scientists.

    • D

      David McFarlandJan 29, 2014 at 1:27 pm

      Well said.
      Radiation levels – at least in the Tokyo Bay area – were still rather comparable to the World Average at the time. I recall seeing about 40-100cpm, with hot-spots of considerably higher (which were easily decontaminated with duct-tape), whereas now the Tokyo area sits at a comfortable 20cpm – the world average is 50cpm.

      Source: Nuclear Reactor Operator presently living just south of Tokyo.
      I’m one of the guys who *gave* the US Government their numbers on the issue.

      • B

        BobM001Jan 31, 2014 at 7:57 am

        • D

          David McFarlandJan 31, 2014 at 10:28 am

          Enenews: Doesn’t even know the difference between radiation and contamination. That’s like Radiation 101. First day of class when it comes to learning about nuclear power. Not a credible website, not even intelligent.

          Worldmag: Provides no contamination levels on what is being released, merely that it is.

          Nytimes: “30 billion becquerels a day” Like saying 30 billion grains of sand is being added to a beach the size of the pacific ocean. That’s nothing compared to what’s already in the pacific from natural uranium.

    • T

      Thomas SchoenbergerFeb 3, 2014 at 6:56 am

      GRL, Deep Sea has done piss poor work. I suggest you check out US Santa Cruz’s work. Deep Sea did not even test mollusks..Huge mistake !

Activate Search
The Student News Site of San Francisco State University
Don’t eat the fish! They’re contaminated