Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

What is the Truth about Radiation in the Environment?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What is the Truth about Radiation in the Environment?

    I've been reading some online stuff about safe radiation levels.

    How bad was exposure from Japan's nuclear facility disaster?

    Is the radiation mixed away in the ocean's depth or is it more compact and harmful?

    Is food from Japan safe?

    Is food from the West Coast of the U.S. safe?

    I saw that fish in The Pacific Ocean are not really safe to eat, due to radiation build up in the human body.

    Milk and animal meat are supposed to be bad, etc.

    Animals in the region where debris impacts on Canada lose fur and sea life is hurt in many ways, such as blood from fish eyes and gills.

    Will it get worse in 2014 and 2015?

    What is the danger to Japan it self?

    "With a deep, not-unhappy sigh, Elric prepared to do battle with an army." (Red Pearls)
    - Michael Moorcock

  • #2
    I'd definitely consider giving up on eating Pacific caught tuna. Tuna is very good at accumulating heavy metals in its body. Plutonium is one of the heavier ones.

    The Pacific is a very, very big body of water and Fukushima is still quite small in comparison, but... Fukushima is now generally recognised as being a much bigger disaster than Chernobyl. Not that that gets a lot of publicity. It's hard to know what effects the prevailing ocean currents have on creating radiation hot spots. Attributing illness and disease directly to radiation is notoriously difficult, owing to how little or how much, exposure that is needed to increase the possibility of some kind of physiological damage, being down to the uncertainties of the laws of probability.

    People can come down with cancers, or suffer with genetic abnormalities, days, months, years, even decades, later, but there's no smoking gun to which the problems can be directly attributed.

    There's lots of misinformation coming from both sides, the tinfoil hatters and official sources. Nobody is very sure exactly what the full consequences might be and few are willing to speculate honestly.

    Try, nuclear expert & whistleblower, Arnie Gundersen's site, at http://fairewinds.org for some fairly independent and unhysterical info. on nuclear and Fukushima related issues. There are some more links to other fairly reliable and official sites there, on the Home page. If you really want to scare yourself, try: http://enenews.com/.

    Avoid conspiracy sites like Above Top Secret, the hysterical reads off the meter there.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Pietro_Mercurios View Post
      I'd definitely consider giving up on eating Pacific caught tuna. Tuna is very good at accumulating heavy metals in its body. Plutonium is one of the heavier ones.

      The Pacific is a very, very big body of water and Fukushima is still quite small in comparison, but... Fukushima is now generally recognised as being a much bigger disaster than Chernobyl. Not that that gets a lot of publicity. It's hard to know what effects the prevailing ocean currents have on creating radiation hot spots. Attributing illness and disease directly to radiation is notoriously difficult, owing to how little or how much, exposure that is needed to increase the possibility of some kind of physiological damage, being down to the uncertainties of the laws of probability.

      People can come down with cancers, or suffer with genetic abnormalities, days, months, years, even decades, later, but there's no smoking gun to which the problems can be directly attributed.

      There's lots of misinformation coming from both sides, the tinfoil hatters and official sources. Nobody is very sure exactly what the full consequences might be and few are willing to speculate honestly.

      Try, nuclear expert & whistleblower, Arnie Gundersen's site, at http://fairewinds.org for some fairly independent and unhysterical info. on nuclear and Fukushima related issues. There are some more links to other fairly reliable and official sites there, on the Home page. If you really want to scare yourself, try: http://enenews.com/.

      Avoid conspiracy sites like Above Top Secret, the hysterical reads off the meter there.
      Thanks so much, Pietro!

      You gave alot of valuable information.

      "With a deep, not-unhappy sigh, Elric prepared to do battle with an army." (Red Pearls)
      - Michael Moorcock

      Comment


      • #4
        Bad stuff tends to accumulate as you go up the food chain. Loath as I am to give it up, I'm probably going to start reducing the amount of salmon in my diet. They are predators, after all.

        http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/...oast-1.2335668

        Comment

        Working...
        X