Latest headlines: You all suck; Mangano-Sherman-Busby Study...Raises Questions; Fukushima research is back
In a recent interview with Surfing Magazine, Ken Buesseler, an ocean scientist with Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, said that recent social media articles about Fukushima's impacts on the Pacific (and to people who use it) have been 'very alarmist and you can blame that on the fear of cancer or bad sci-fi movies from the past.'
Really? Gosh, Ken! What's wrong with having fear of cancer? And are you saying that we are exaggerating our fears of radiation exposures like B-movie filmmakers do when they have us believe that radioactive accidents can mutate creatures into apocalyptic, city-destroying monsters? It is a fact that radiation mutates. You wouldn't be Ken Buesseler had radiation not mutated our common simian ancestors into Homo sapiens. That is a role that radiation has played in evolution although the vast, vast, vast majority of mutations are not advantageous to a species. Humans, in this nuclear age, are simply increasing the rate of mutations via their careless dumping of radiation into the environment. Most mutations, as I said, aren't beneficial, so why would increasing exposures from manmade sources, in addition to background or natural sources, have a neutral impact for life on Earth? It wouldn't. More mutations are in the offing. This increase in background levels of radiation on Earth won't suddenly turn up ninja turtles, gigantic spiders or a city-ravaging Godzilla monster, but your statement regarding the ocean situation affected by Fukushima - it 'does not create a hazardous situation' - is patently false! There is no safe dose of radiation. That applies equally to cancers as it does to genetics. Cancers will always result from population wide exposures to radiation. Thus, shouldn't we have some fear of radiation with regards to our cancer risks, in addition to the genetic risks?
Statistically - and I'm shocked I have to explain this to a Ph.D. scientist - if you calculate the mass exposures to radiation by multiplying the person-rem by the cancer incidence rate, the calculation ALWAYS pumps out a few cancers. People die everyday from all types of past radiation exposures. So, no matter how low of a dose swimmers and surfers and seafood lovers get from Fukushima impacted waters and sea life, as long as that dose isn't zero, there will be cancers and cancer deaths that statistically can be attributed to those low dose exposures.
So, why say all is safe? Explain that, Ken, to the persons who will contract cancer from Pacific radiation exposures because they followed your advice!
Another deception put forward by this noteworthy ocean scientist in the article is that dissipation of Fukushima radiation in the Pacific is like diluting creamer in your coffee. That is bullshit. Via the spoon, you endeavor to mix up the sugar and creamer as effectively as possible. Mother nature does not have this as a top priority for the Pacific. Dilution happens. Eventually. But it takes time. The ocean is a big, fucking cup of coffee. How much time lapses between the release from the point source and the moment of complete dilution? A heck of a lot. And, by the way, it appears that dilution isn't really the right word to use to explain what happens in the ocean after huge radiation inputs. It's a bit more complicated. From a 2012 article by Robert Alvarez, at this link, http://tinyurl.com/c3xkdhd:
'According to a previously secret 1955 memo from the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission regarding concerns of the British government over contaminated tuna, "dissipation of radioactive fall-out in ocean waters is not a gradual spreading out of the activity from the region with the highest concentration to uncontaminated regions, but that in all probability the process results in scattered pockets and streams of higher radioactive materials in the Pacific. We can speculate that tuna which now show radioactivity from ingested materials have been living, in or have passed through, such pockets; or have been feeding on plant and animal life which has been exposed in those areas." '
And what about bioaccumulation? Alaska's state government, for example, tests for mercury in fish, which bioaccumulates in fish in the SAME WAY that radioactivity is bioaccumulating (from the Fukushima radiation). Yet, ALASKA REFUSES, LIKE THE FDA, TO TEST OUR FISH.
If you don't know the levels of radiation in peoples' seafood, then SHUT THE HELL UP. People could be eating 'hot' fish, but if there is no data to refute this notion, then why say all is safe???
Also, Ken, every radioactive atom won't kill you but each radioactive atom HYPOTHETICALLY CAN kill you!
Certainly there are lots of threats in our environment but if you don't HAVE to swim or eat Pacific Ocean seafood, then why would you expose yourself to additional risk? There's an analogy put forward by a reputable Chernobyl scientist to radiation exposure. Some people in the population have been exposed through their lives to radiation to the point that they are like a barrel brimming with water. That water is radiation exposure. When that barrel overflows, there's a cancer that develops. One extra single drop of radiation could be the thing that triggers cancer. Think about it.
Finally, I cannot stand these Ph.D.s who rely on dose response formulas that Chernobyl scientists are now saying are incorrect. Haven't these Ph.D.s read the studies??
The book 'Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment,' by Alexey Yablokov, Vassily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko, published in 2011, states the facts of the situation: 'More and more cases are coming to light in which the calculated radiation dose does not correlate with observable impacts that are obviously due to radiation.'
This applies to the observable impacts on the residents of Rongelap, the U.S. downwinders, and Fukushima children, all of whom were dosed with cesium-134, cesium-137, strontium-90, etc..., as it does to the victims of Chernobyl.
Friends, don't trust that all science is complete and it can be bottled into perfect little working formulas. Ken is playing with the Barbie doll version of radiobiology. It is antiquated. And it is actually politically incorrect to the victims of past radiation disasters. The methodology of leading international bodies for determining the impacts of radiation on human biology - especially of manmade radioactive isotopes - used by mainstream scientists is inaccurate and scientifically fallacious. More evidence? Dr. Chris Busby's organization, which refutes the mainstream international standards for radiation exposure via his organization's risk model named the 'ECRR,' posits that 60,000,000 fatal cancers were caused by RADIOACTIVE pollution released into the environment since 1945. That's not bananas. That's MANMADE NUCLEAR POLLUTION, like the sort that is flowing into the Pacific as you read this. THAT IS A SCARY, SCARY THING. AND IT AIN'T NO SCIFI MOVIE.
WE OUGHT TO FEAR CANCER.
WE OUGHT TO FEAR RADIATION.
WE OUGHT TO STAND BY OUR EMOTIONS BECAUSE THEY SERVE TO PROTECT US! IF THIS MEANS WE CAN'T SURF, SWIM OR EAT SEAFOOD, which, by the way, isn't going to kill anyone to stop doing, then that just might stop our collective barrels of cancers from overflowing. In case you haven't noticed, our scientists collectively have no friggin' idea why cancer rates are increasing, not decreasing even though medicine keeps allegedly improving. Shouldn't we be exercising caution in our nuclear age, especially regarding a class of substances - namely manmade radioactivity - that is considered genotoxic and carcinogenic?
And we should not take bad advice. As strange as it might sound, the scientists of tomorrow will look back at the scientists of today as a bad sci-fi movie. Perhaps you film makers out there can consider casting a Ph.D. ocean scientist I know. His name is Ken Buesseler.