Please share far and wide!

Monday, August 24, 2015

The Government Reporting "Quality" on Radiation Testing is Horrifically Deficient, Even High Schools Kids Are Outperforming

There is a current "Unusual Mortality Event" of Whales in Alaska.   The report from NOAA was in a Q&A format, but no mention of where the Q's came from.

Here where I am going with this article.

1)  High school students are doing a much better job of Radiation testing and analysis A.

2) And prior to 2011 there were regular, detailed and pertinent scientific reports on sea life in Alaska with charts and graphs, 10000% better than the drivel that is dribbled out to us now, after Fukushima (an example is below).     

Read on intrepid readers, and then pick up a phone and call your government reps and send them this link, and say why can't we get a report at least as good as a high school student on radiation in sea life 

The total reporting on radiation from NOAA in this UME (Unusual Mortality Event) related to radiation is this:
Q: Is there any link to these large whale deaths to the Fukushima nuclear reactor meltdown?
A:  It is highly unlikely. From the one fin whale which was accessible to investigators, muscle samples were sent to the University of Alaska Fairbanks for radionuclide analysis, specifically cesium 134/137.  Preliminary results do not suggest any unusual exposure to human-generated radionuclides, specifically cesium, that would be considered harmful to wildlife.  Further testing is underway.
Source:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/faqs_2015_large_whale.html 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So on this never occurred in history here mortality event, NOAA is doing one test, on one element, apparently from 1 piece of muscle undefined, and all we get are preliminary results, with not even a promise that we will be presented with further test results, just that they are doing some further testing, unspecified as to what an time frame.

My take is that they don't even consider that they should have some respect for the little people who are working their tales off to pay the grants that pay these "scientists".

Like the little people here at this high school who put together a far better report using 700 samples and wrote it up in a way that made sense.    Check it out....how come NOAA (see picture of their headquarters at bottom, with their vast resources) how come NOAA can't beat a high school student?

Here is a report chart from the "High School Student"

http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary/2014/03/24/alberta-students-science-project-finds-high-radiation-levels-in-grocery-store-seafood.html


And here is her whole report which you can view or download if you wish.

Here are some screen caps from an Alaska 2007 report, its high quality and very detailed.    It is unfathomable that they have not repeated this testing.    Methinks they have, but the results would be too disgusting to release.   We need a science whistle-blower, send out those reports to the general public.   We need to know.

here is the report is full, you can review or download as a PDF if you wish













And here is another report detailing Fukushima sea ice theory of dispersion



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren of ENENEWS has become expert at digging up people's emails.
Tonight after work, I am going to send each a letter, and ask for a response.

Emails of Scientists referred to in lead articles:

vera.l.trainer@noaa.gov (Dr. Vera Trainer, Research Oceanographer with the Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Washington State)
Teri.Rowles@noaa.gov (Dr. Teri Rowles Coordinator, Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Program (MMHSRP)
National Marine Fisheries Service

paul.cottrell@dfo-mpo.gc.ca (Paul Cottrell, Marine Mammals Coordinator, Pacific Region Fisheries and Oceans Canada)
bree.witteveen@alaska.edu (Bree Witteveen Marine Mammal Specialist. Research Assistant Professor, Univ. of Alaska)

Prof. Kate Wynne
Marine Mammal Specialist
Professor, Univ. of Alaska at Fairbanks.
E-mail: kate.wynne@alaska.edu

7 comments:

  1. No one doubts there are non-zero levels of radioactivity. The question is how far from zero does radioactivity have to be to be a risk? Careful here, there are background levels of all isotopes in the environment.

    No one that claims "no safe dose" has ever tested that theory by incrementally departing from zero at a deminimus delta dose - say one atom. Modern radiation detectors only produce a signal from an average and a threshold. Below a threshold value for detection, the instrument doesnt register any counts. Yet radioactive processes are present at the most minutest non-zero level.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " Careful here, there are background levels of all isotopes in the environment. "

      Suggesting that all radiation is created equally. Man-made v. "natural" ....

      Delete
    2. Agreed that the LNT model is too easy to take pot shots at.

      My take is that chronic low doses are worse than a one time large dose like a CT, especially internal contamination chronic low dose that keeps attacking the same area of the body.

      But just because LNT is easy to pot shot, does NOT MEAN that we should reduce safety standards, or god forbid, go full tilt 'tard subscribe to a hormesis THEORY. stock out

      Delete
  2. Two analogous situations to show how Science is being "gamed" by our Government:

    A. Imagine that our Government told us that their studies have shown that more sex is good for everyone because "it causes us no harm" and therefore we no longer have the personal freedom to decide:

    1) How much sex we want

    2) Who we can have sex with

    3) What forms of sex we must accept

    4) When we must start having sex

    B. Everyone knows that a little sunlight (aka Solar radiation) is good for you but too much can cause health many problems problems including premature aging and cancer. If the Government increased the amount of sunshine they said was acceptable, it could have negative health affects on many people, and especially those with fair skin.

    With the Government deciding that they can raise the "acceptable" radiation limits in our food, the air we breathe and everything else, they are treating us no differently than the laboratory test animals whose lives are controlled by the nuclear Industry.

    The ☢ rule of thumb should be to accept no additional radiation unless you personally need it for some specific purpose, like an X-ray.

    The idea that all of US should accept additional radiation dosage because it allows Big Nuclear to make Big Money is unacceptable!

    Increasing allowable safety limits is nothing but a "gift" to the nuclear industry that allows them to increase the level of radioactivity over that that which is naturally occurring. Any addition ☢ (aka"pollution") that is man-made (coming from a reactor, weapons, manufacturing or nuclear waste storage) is not naturally occurring and should not be tolerated.

    Changing the legal definition of the word does not make man-made "pollution" "acceptable", it just highlights that our Government is gaming the quality of our health to benefit the Nuclear Industry!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. have you commented to the NRC

      Delete
    2. Tracking Number: 1jz-8kr9-brsg

      Two analogous situations to show how ☢ Science is being "gamed" by our Government/NRC:

      A. Imagine that our Government told us that their studies have shown that more sex is good for everyone because "it causes us no harm" and therefore we no longer have the personal freedom to decide:

      1) How much sex we want

      2) Who we can have sex with

      3) What forms of sex we must accept

      4) When we must start having sex

      B. Everyone knows that a little sunlight (aka Solar radiation) is good for you but too much can cause many health problems including premature aging of the skin and different types of cancer. If the Government increased the amount of sunshine they said was acceptable, it could have negative health affects on many people, and especially those with fair skin.

      With the Government and/or the NRC deciding that they can raise the "acceptable" radiation limits in our food, the air we breathe and everything else, they are treating us no differently than the laboratory test animals whose lives are controlled by the nuclear Industry.

      The ☢ rule of thumb for everyone should be to accept no additional radiation unless you personally need it for some specific purpose, like an X-ray.

      The idea that all of US should accept additional radiation dosage because it allows Big Nuclear to make Big Money is unacceptable!

      Increasing allowable safety limits is nothing but a "gift" to the nuclear industry that allows them to increase the level of radioactivity over that that which is naturally occurring. Any addition ☢ (aka"pollution") that is man-made (coming from a reactor, weapons, manufacturing or nuclear waste storage) is not naturally occurring and should not be tolerated.

      Changing the legal definition of the word man-made "pollution" does not make it "acceptable", it just highlights that our Government is now threatening the quality of our health to benefit the Nuclear Industry!

      +

      Two analogous situations to show how Science is being "gamed" by our Government:

      A. Imagine that our Government told us that their studies have shown that more sex is good for everyone because "it causes us no harm" and therefore we no longer have the personal freedom to decide:

      1) How much sex we want

      2) Who we can have sex with

      3) What forms of sex we must accept

      4) When we must start having sex

      B. Everyone knows that a little sunlight (aka Solar radiation) is good for you but too much can cause health many problems problems including premature aging and cancer. If the Government increased the amount of sunshine they said was acceptable, it could have negative health affects on many people, and especially those with fair skin.

      With the Government deciding that they can raise the "acceptable" radiation limits in our food, the air we breathe and everything else, they are treating us no differently than the laboratory test animals whose lives are controlled by the nuclear Industry.

      The ☢ rule of thumb should be to accept no additional radiation unless you personally need it for some specific purpose, like an X-ray.

      The idea that all of US should accept additional radiation dosage because it allows Big Nuclear to make Big Money is unacceptable!

      Increasing allowable safety limits is nothing but a "gift" to the nuclear industry that allows them to increase the level of radioactivity over that that which is naturally occurring. Any addition ☢ (aka"pollution") that is man-made (coming from a reactor, weapons, manufacturing or nuclear waste storage) is not naturally occurring and should not be tolerated.

      Changing the legal definition of the word does not make man-made "pollution" "acceptable", it just highlights that our Government is gaming the quality of our health to benefit the Nuclear Industry!

      Delete
  3. http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary/2014/03/24/alberta-students-science-project-finds-high-radiation-levels-in-grocery-store-seafood.html
    https://www.radcast.org/brownwyn-delacruz/

    Quote: "Conclusion: Radioactively contaminated food is entering Canada and being sold undetected. Urgent attention is needed by the CFIA for further study. But with no additional testing planned by the CFIA at this time, it is up to individual citizens to remain vigi-lant. The data compels us to screen our food independently, spearhead the development of an international collaborative effort of data acquisition and sharing through an open source database, petition the government to restart the CFIA’s enhanced testing program as well as to petition our government to assist Japan in their containment efforts before it is too late."
    [note: bold/italic emphasis, mine]

    ReplyDelete

Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments