What Matters Most
2 views | +0 today
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Chugiakian from Fukushima

Secrets about Fukushima radiating California must end, Assemblyman says

Secrets about Fukushima radiating California must end, Assemblyman says | What Matters Most | Scoop.it
A California assemblyman began pushing Friday for transparency about Fukushima reactor meltdown radiation contaminating the Pacific Coast of the United States a

Via Ton Kraanen
RadiationAlerts.org's curator insight, January 15, 2014 8:45 PM

re-posted in FB Group, Radiation Alerts from Japan and other failed reactors

Rescooped by Chugiakian from FUKUSHIMA 311 WATCHDOGS

Research: Aquatic plant life can help clean up radioactive pollution

Research: Aquatic plant life can help clean up radioactive pollution | What Matters Most | Scoop.it

Research: Aquatic plant life can help clean up radioactive pollution


 TOKYO, Jan. 9 (UPI) -- Seventeen types of aquatic plant life can help remove radioactive materials from the atmosphere, Japanese scientists reported.

The Japanese plant scientists said their findings will add to existing bio-remedial options that could help to reduce radioactive pollution in Fukushima area, where an earthquake in 2011 spawned a nuclear disaster at the Fukushima 1 Nuclear Power Plant.
Their two years of research was published Thursday in a special edition of Springer's Journal of Plant Research.
The research group, led by Yoshihiro Shiraiwa of the


of Tsukuba, identified 17 microalgae, aquatic plants and algae could efficiently remove radioactive cesium, iodine and strontium from the environment. Because the strains identified are easy to harvest and dry, they could potentially be used to recover radioactive cesium from a huge volume of polluted water if the cesium is dissolved in the water, the researchers said.
"Biological concentration of radio-nuclides is an essential technology for bio-remediation of radio-polluted soils and water," Shiraiwa said. "Therefore our results provide an important strategy for decreasing [radioactive pollution] in the Fukushima area."
The researchers said more studies were needed on the algal strains before their findings could be implemented.

Microalgae May Help Clean Radioactive Pollution at Fukushima, Researchers Say

Tokyo Electric Power Co. officials check a wall along the coastline at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan on Nov. 7, 2013. Scientists said that microalgae are helping remove radioactive pollution from the waters around the plant, which suffered multiple meltdowns after an earthquake in March 2011.
Microscopic species could help clean up one of the world’s biggest environmental disasters, researchers claim.
In an article published in the Journal for Plant Research this week, a team of Japanese scientists said that six strains of microalgae, along with certain types of aquatic plants and other algae, could help remove radioactive pollution from the waters around the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan, which suffered multiple meltdowns after a devastating earthquake and tsunami in March 2011.
[READ: Suburbs Wipe Out Cities' Green Initiatives] In particular, the strains absorb radioactive cesium, iodine and strontium, which make-up most of the radioactive pollution in the area, the


said. The findings, researchers added, may ultimately help workers develop more methods for mopping up the area around Fukushima. “Our results provide an important strategy for decreasing radiopollution in Fukushima area,” the team wrote. “An urgent risk has arisen due to biological intake and subsequent food web contamination in the ecosystem.”
Japan’s Ministry of Energy has estimated that cleanup around the plant will cost about $35 billion. Initially slated to be completed in March, the timeline was pushed back in December to 2017, the Japan Times reported.

Via D'un Renard
D'un Renard's curator insight, January 10, 2014 8:02 AM

My opinion: 

Even such possibility brings us  some hope, 

Even if those algae would indeed attract and assimilate 90% of the environmental contamination, the problem of what to do afterwards with all those highly contaminated algae remains, and with 3 ongoing meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi constantly unceasingly puking contamination into the sea, to remove it all out of the seawater would be a pipe dream turning a never ending nightmare....

To me this solution looks like harnessing the ox behind the plow....

Rescooped by Chugiakian from News You Can Use - NO PINKSLIME


#GLOBALCATASTROPHE - PACIFIC OCEAN/FUKUSHEMA DESTRUCTION - Your Days of Eating Pacific Ocean Fish Are Over | What Matters Most | Scoop.it
Opinion by Gary Stamper - from collapsingintoconsciousness.com
heart-breaking news from Fukushima just keeps getting worse…a LOT
worse…it is, quite simply,

Via #BBBundyBlog #NOMORELIES Tom Woods #Activist Award #Scoopiteer >20,000 Sources >250K Connections http://goo.gl/ruHO3Q
Chugiakian's insight:

Guess I go buy a gieger counter, before this years fishing season.

No comment yet.
Rescooped by Chugiakian from FUKUSHIMA 311 WATCHDOGS

Further Analysis on 2011 Alaska Contaminantion, Where is it now? The real question

Further Analysis on 2011 Alaska Contaminantion, Where is it now? The real question | What Matters Most | Scoop.it


Further Analysis on 2011 Alaska Contaminantion, Where is it now? The real question

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.   

And the source study and the charts that I pulled out are right here on my original post.




Taking further review of "stock" post on Alaska radiation study



azby says:

January 6, 2014 13:48

 –The Alaska nuclide test report Stock pointed out is very informative, and I urge people to read the whole thing, and to find out more about the monitoring that has been being done there since 1965. Amchitka was the site of several underground nuclear tests; the neighboring island of Adak is used as a “control” to which nuclide levels can be compared.
More info here:
Report link:
Brief fact sheet:
The 2011 monitoring season came 3 months after the start of the Fukushima disaster. As the report notes (section 9.0):

“The results imply that Dolly Varden, rockweed, and to a lesser extent, Irish lord appear to contain a significant cesium isotope signature from Fukushima Dai-ichi. ……
… Observations of Fukushima-derived fallout impacting on this region are supported by findings of elevated levels of 134Cs (and 137Cs) in lichen and soil collected from both the Adak and Amchitka regions.”
So there’s no doubt that Fukushima nuclides made it to the Aleutians, and yes, they also made it to CA and elsewhere. The important question is “In what concentrations?” And, “How can we find out how much we got, and where it is?” The Amchitka tests focus on lichen because it’s one of the greatest biological concentrators of Cs. The levels in lichen are regularly hundreds or thousands of times higher than what’s found in the soil beneath them. Amazing creatures, and somewhat like mushrooms in this regard. In arctic regions, species like reindeer feed on the lichen, which contributes to high contamination levels in their flesh which persists for decades. It’s worth pointing out, however, that caribou in northern Canada, for instance, show eye-openingly high levels of internal contamination from natural radionuclides as well, particularly Po210, and people who have relied on them as a food source for centuries had high internal contamination themselves even before the nuclear era because of it.
They tested fish, seaweed, and other marine species caught off Amchitka and Adak for Cs137, Am241, U234, 235, and 238, and Pu239 and 240at the same time, and came up with less than 1 Bq/kg of Cs in the highest sample, which was mussels. Table 15 shows that samples from the Irish Sea are much higher, up to around 11 Bq/kg. All this is just for context
I agree that there are good reasons to do more monitoring right about now, and not wait until 2016. And no good reason not to do more testing in CA as well.
Anyway, we’ve established that Fukushima contamination was clearly detectable in Alaskan lichen in the sumer of 2011. But how did that compare to before the Fukushima disaster? A look at table 40 (it’s posted on the website Stock linked to) gives a very good idea:

In table 40: Cs137 in lichen
1970-71 Clam lake range 8000-27000 pCi/kg (300-1000 Bq/kg) (stock --after three massive atomic bombs were set off on the island)
1971-79 Clam lake range 1500-67000 pCi/kg (55-2479 Bq/kg) (stock --after the three atomic bombs were set off on this island, the radiation in lichens tripled after the first initial dosing, and then lasted for a decade)
1997 Amchitka range 64-74 pCi/kg (2.3-2.7 Bq/kg)
2011 Amchitka range 1890-7120 pCi/kg (70-263 Bq/kg) (stock--after Fukushima)

STOCK--So Fukushima, 2000 miles away caused a radiation level about 1/4 of what three direct atomic bombs would do at ground zero.   Look at the blue highlights above.   Think about that now.)  
The point being that while Cs levels in 2011 had increased compared to 1997 due to Fukushima, they were still lower than anytime between 1970-79, due to nuclear testing.  (Stock --due to direct bombing of the island the tests were conducted on, not at all a fair comparison!)
Stock Here-- This reviewer is kind of pretending that the high rates at Clam lake  are due to overall world wide nuclear testing "fallout".    Clam lake is in the Anchitka Island which was not receiving just worldwide nuclear fallout, but was the actual site of several direct nuclear bomb tests.  

Here is some background

Amchitka Island sits at the midway point on the great arc of Alaska's Aleutian Islands, less than 900 miles across the Bering Sea from the coast of Russia. Amchitka, a spongy landscape of maritime tundra, is one of the most southerly of the Aleutians. The island's relatively temperate climate has made it one of the Arctic's most valuable bird sanctuaries, a critical staging ground for more than 100 migratory species, as well as home to walruses, sea otters and sea lions. Off the coast of Amchitka is a thriving fishery of salmon, pollock, haddock and halibut.
  All of these values were recognized early on. In 1913, Amchitka was designated as a national wildlife refuge by President William Howard Taft. But these ecological wonders were swept aside in the early '60s when the Pentagon and the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) went on the lookout for a new place to blow up H-bombs. Thirty years ago, Amchitka was the site of three large underground nuclear tests, including the most powerful nuclear explosion ever detonated by the United States.

Back to the Review
And this is one of the points: outside of the most contaminated parts of Fukushima itself, the fallout from this disaster was much less than that from the nuclear testing period. (stock here---from the nuke testing of 3 bombs on one island, including the largest nuke bomb ever set off by the USA, and they are comparing that to contamination from the Fukushima over 2000 miles away--stock out) That doesn’t make it alright, and we’re not saying bomb test fallout was ok either. In fact as a society we’re still trying to understand what the health effects from testing were.

From our point of view, as a group of people very committed to characterizing and measuring the contamination in order to help people make well-informed decisions regarding their health and well-being, the more we understand about how this compares with past radioactive releases and their effects, the better our decisions and choices will be.


Source: http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.fr/2014/01/further-analysis-on-2011-alaska.html


















Via D'un Renard
Chugiakian's insight:

The need for current, and ongoing testing is needed now!

No comment yet.