I'm watching the trees die as I type.

Fukushima is Not Contained, is spewing into the air and into the water. I've not eaten any fish since and will not be eating fish anytime soon.

The media has done such a great job. I should check in on Kevin Blanch...

Go buy/build a geiger counter or a scintillation detector. You'll quickly find that this is not the case unless you're living in fukushima prefecture.

There is a site showing radiation monitors run by citizens: http://radiationnetwork.com/

To address your points in order: 1) No, it is pretty standard for states to leave rad monitoring up to federal agencies. The EPA has a ton of land-based monitoring stations, which provide ample data for this sort of thing. Further, the more militarily-oriented agencies have stations that constantly run gamma spectroscopy to look for test-ban-treaty violations. There amount of activity reaching the CA coast is very, very small, and this can be easily verified by anyone with $500 worth of homebrew gamma spectrometry equipment. A cheap NaI counter from eBay with a GammaSpectacular and a USB soundcard is more than sufficient. The concentrations of Cs-134/137 are on the order of a few Bq/m3, which is far, far below the natural background from dissolved uranium and thorium. I encourage you to buy/build the equipment and test this yourself. I have, and I learned a lot from it.

2) [All the sea-life posts] If there was enough radioactivity in the ocean to cause ARS in sea-life thousands of miles away in the open pacific, you can bet it would be detectable as fuck. You would need somewhere in the range of 109 Bq/m3, or roughly 100M-1Bn times the concentrations we see off the coast of CA. My dosimeter would shit itself if I was within 50m of such activity.... it's just not something that could be hidden. Further, there is not enough radioactivity in all of Fukushima (or all the nuclear plants in the world) to cause such widespread high-level contamination.

3)[The hot water post] I encourage you to do the math on this one. An average radioactive decay event releases about 1MeV, or 1.6E-13 joules. To heat a gram of H2O by a degree C in a day, you need ~4.2J, or roughly 2.6E13 decays total (or 3E8 decays/second). This is an insane amount of radioactivity, and you would die quickly being anywhere near a body of water that is this radioactive. Fucking lake karachay is less hot than that.

4) [Hypothyroidism posts] This is an artifact of increased screening and lower detection limits due to better medical imaging. Thyroid effects from nuclear plant accidents are caused by I-131, which has a half-life that is too short to survive the drift across the pacific. It could be carried on air currents, but that would set off alarms at every hospital everywhere (because it is used therapeutically, and they have monitoring to detect even the smallest leaks). Plus, the timing is all wrong.

5) [ENE news] This is not a reputable or reasonable news site. They frequently distort good research and exaggerate the fuck out of things.

If you actually think there is significant Fukushima contamination where you live, PM me. I can test most items under ~100cm³ (due to size constraints on the shielding setup I have). I can also help you set up your own monitoring station or help pick out gamma spectrometry gear.

the nice touch is that if by some huge luck and miracle they manage to defuse the ticking bomb that is the damaged nuclear fuel containers, the media will show up and be 24/7 like how this was so dangerous but due to the brave minds of humanity we are fucking safe now.

but we are fucked, so.

The study, published in 2013, does not mention radiation or Fukushima:

In the northeast Pacific (Station M), the abyssal community is sustained by episodic pulses of food originating in surface waters. These pulses have increased in magnitude over the past several years, together with increases in surface water primary production. Although environmental variation, such as air temperature and winds, affect the physical dynamics of this upwelling ecosystem, the specific mechanisms behind the changes in food-supply composition and food-web processes corresponding with the peaks in 2011 and 2012 remain unknown.

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/49/19838.full

Fukushima is one of those issues that is being blacked out of the MSM completely. The study cited by naturalnews makes no mention of radiation or Fukushima in the entirety of it's text. However it is not a huge leap in logic to figure it out. The die-offs have only been getting worse all along the west coastlines of the US and Canada since this study was released.

Yes, Fukushima is never mentioned in the MSM:

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-fukushima-radiation-plume-20141229-story.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/world/asia/concerns-over-measurement-of-fukushima-fallout.html

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/11/world/asia/fukushima-anniversary.html

I am mainly referring to TV. Googling up the occasional splash in a mainstream publication does not mean they are trying to inform people and make them aware of what is happening. A story placed deep inside the bowels of a newspaper is not the same thing as saturation coverage on ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, MSNBC and CNN.

Okay, then:

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Kelp-Radioactive-Fukushima-Earthquake-Tsunami-CSU-Long-Beach-248924521.html

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/03/11/aquarium-of-the-pacific-to-address-fallout-fears-on-fukushima-anniversary/

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/01/08/no-danger-in-eating-pacific-ocean-fish-despite-fukushima-disaster-usc-professor-says/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/tag/fukushima/

Next, I suppose you'll say "well, I am demanding SATURATION COVERAGE on TV".

I am not interested in casting aspersions, or reading your efforts to do so to me. I was more interested in a balanced discussion looking at both sides and the middle ground of the issue. Seeing you Googling up links in support 'your side' of the issue and pasting them into your comments while ignoring other evidence does not interest me.

Oh, I was just addressing the claim that the MSM is ignoring the story. In my experience, almost always that is a false claim, used to try to whip up emotion. And it seems to be false in this case.

If you'd like to discuss some of the REAL issues of Fukushima, I'm willing.

These "shocking headlines" have been blasting out for almost 2 years now; see http://www.activistpost.com/2013/10/28-signs-that-west-coast-is-being.html

Fukushima was a serious accident, and the site still has major problems. But there also seems to be some attempt to whip up hysteria with innuendo and fearmongering.

Arrival of the Fukushima radioactivity plume in North American continental waters

For those who wish to read for themselves.

Edit - Other Fukushima scientific papers from PNAS

Some quotes from that first article:

"The increase in 137Cs levels in the eastern North Pacific from Fukushima inputs will probably return eastern North Pacific concentrations to the fallout levels that prevailed during the 1980s but does not represent a threat to human health or the environment. "

[For fish] "This predicted exposure level is many orders of magnitude less than the baseline safe level of 420 µGy/h, below which harmful effects are not expected at either the aquatic ecosystem or the population level."

"These results indicate that future projected levels of 137Cs in seawater in the Northeast Pacific Ocean are well below levels posing a threat to human health or the environment."

Thanks for the link to that article !

The only problem I have is that there are a lot of weasel words in the study, it is not really definitive, but then again there is a LOT we do not know, and we are early, in relative terms, into the Fukushima disaster.

There are still the dying animals washing up at levels never before seen.

But you are correct, the inciting of fear into the discussion never amounts to much good. I am still in the process of looking at the evidence when it comes to the effects of Fukushima fallout and contamination along the North American coast.

Something like "dying animals washing up at levels never before seen", if true, shouldn't be linked automatically to a cause, such as Fukushima, without evidence. Perhaps it's due to pollution, viruses, ocean temp changes, ocean acidity changes. Or perhaps we're just monitoring for dead animals more than we used to.

Sounds like you are determined to rule out the possibility of Fukushima which is indicative of an obvious bias. If all you are interested in is 'debunking', then I think we are done here.

No, I'm saying if you have some thing, such as dead animals, don't automatically jump to "must be due to Fukushima". Is that a "biased" statement ?

Most of the links (ENEnews, Natural Society) aren't scientific and instead using pseudoscience and lies to push their agenda and get ad revenue. I'd suggest reading an oceanography book or two so you can interpret information on your own instead of relying on anonymous people on the Internet.

interpret information on your own

Without adequate testing of food products, how can we interpret anything? I want to see testing of all relevant food products for all relevant isotopes: salmon, tuna, snapper, carp, tilapia, shrimp, urchin, clams, mussels, seaweed/kelp, mushrooms of all types, fruits and vegetables; cesium 134/137, strontium 90, cobalt 60, iodine 129, uranium, plutonium, etc.

Why is this testing not being done? Where is our information? I suspect that we are not truly interested in any inconvenient answer.

You can test for it.

Hold on, ordering a lab real quick to run some tests.

gtfo

Well if you personally don't have the ability to prove it, it must not be happening.

You don't need to. Go buy a NaI scintillator from eBay and a GammaSpectacular from Bee Research. $500 will get you all the equipment needed to test whatever. Or send it to me, I'll scan whatever you want (within reason) for free

There are lots of labs around the country you can send samples to. You don't have to have your own.

Very true. It's the same principle applied to believing these people who 'pretend' to have absolute knowledge of something also. Aka, scientists.

We can't however stop the nuclear rods from slowly sinking which in time keeps the radiation at maximum levels. We've already been told by Japan's scientist they can't stop this because such technology and ideas just haven't been thought of/invented yet.

In other words.. To get a bit of cheap energy and keep up with the big six.. Let's build the most unreliable power plants money can buy. I shake my head violently and slap my forehead of knowing we allow such people to destroy thousands of lives and they don't have a back up plan.

The west coast of northern England have just been told not to drink tap water as there is a bacteria in there.

It always comes down to

1)profit 2) life

I have no idea what you're trying to say, sorry. Is English your second language?

It was a VERY reliable and safe plant... but few nuke plants can withstand both an Israeli virus designed to destroy it AND multiple Israeli nuclear bombs simultaneously.

People who decry this subreddit for blaming everything on da Joos need look no further than this comment. Gimme a break and give it a rest, please.

anonymous people wrote the oceanography books as well

You might want to look up the definition of "anonymous".

How is that different from the Mockingbird establishment press?

The publishing company?

It's up to you. If you want to keep on worrying about it, nobody's going to stop you. But what good does worrying about something you can't fix do you? You might as well get an ulcer worrying about the global climate. Or the amount of gold in Fort Knox.

Well, we should learn from events, especially disasters. But maybe not constantly "worry" or obsess about them.

Some lessons from Fukushima, I think:

• no matter how much we try to estimate risks from natural events or other dangers, we can be wrong and they can happen.

• every now and then a nuclear plant has a horrible accident, and we have to evacuate an area for decades or hundreds of years, and spend tens of billions of dollars to try to fix things.

• spent-fuel ponds are less-protected than reactor vessels, and need active maintenance or else bad things happen.

Can you please enlighten me and educate me as to what you are implying? I don't understand your comment. I understand not worrying until there is something to worry about… but… look! I don't have ulcers, either. Gold in Fort Knox? Please explain in depth.

it might be more useful to take precautions to make sure that if radiation is leaking, your body can handle the exposure. there has been a lot of research about gut health, fermented foods, seaweeds, and fermented soy helping to combat the damage from radiation. probably other stuff if you google it.

Yeah, it's all gone now.

It's all fixed.

They came up with a new detergent that caused all the radiation to fade away... they turned the reactor into a pleasant home for wayward seagulls and all is right with the world.

Now we have to worry about republicans and democrats toxifying the planet.

Besides... who the hell are YOU to bring up something that is so two years ago? HuH?

Remember Chernobyl? Its damage is a grain in the sand compared to Fukushima. CNPP was contained within reasonable time (heroic people died to save many others), while Fukushima is still leaking into the ocean.

IMO it's much more important than the constant reposts about 9/11 as it's been done to death.

It isn't anything to worry about, the sea life will adapt over time and so will us.

Right. Adapt to your kids' grandkids looking like sloth from the goonies?

it might be more useful to take precautions to make sure that if radiation is leaking, your body can handle the exposure. there has been a lot of research about gut health, fermented foods, seaweeds, and fermented soy helping to combat the damage from radiation. probably other stuff if you google it.