— Skin lesions, hair loss, lethargy — ‘Pulsed release’ when built-up radionuclides were set free as ice melted — “Wildlife health implications” due to radiation exposure discussed
Currently, the underlying etiology remains undetermined. We present results on gamma analysis (cesium 134 and 137) of muscle tissue from control and diseased seals, and discuss wildlife health implications from different possible routes of exposure to Fukushima fallout to ice seals. Since the Fukushima fallout period occurred during the annual sea ice cover period from Nome to Barrow, a sea ice based fallout scenario in addition to a marine food web based one is of particular relevance for the Fukushima accident. Under a proposed sea ice fallout deposition scenario, radionuclides would have been settled onto sea ice. Sea ice and snow would have acted as a temporary refuge for deposited radionuclides; thus radionuclides would have only become available for migration during the melting season and would not have entered the regional food web in any appreciable manner until breakup (pulsed release). The cumulative on-ice exposure for ice seals would have occurred through external, inhalation, and non-equilibrium dietary pathwaysduring the ice-based seasonal spring haulout period for molting/pupping/breeding activities. Additionally, ice seals would have been under dietary/metabolic constraints and experiencing hormonal changes associated with reproduction and molting.
Link to pdf 2011 Fukushima Fall Out: Aerial Deposition On To Sea Ice Scenario And Wildlife Health Implications To Ice-Associated Seals (Dr. Doug Dasher, John Kelley, Gay Sheffield, Raphaela Stimmelmayr) [link to www.alaskamarinescience.org]
Two of the four authors will be appearing on an Alaska radio program this Tuesday January 28 to discuss radiation from Fukushima: [link to http://www.alaskapublic.org]
You can comment under the article and questions will be read on air ^^
Welcome to RadCast
We bring you the most truthful information regarding radiation and radiation fallout.
What you do with that information is your choice. But now you have a choice.
RadCast has many different kinds of maps.
We have a main map which provides citizen readings by volunteers around the world.
We have statistics within the maps for you become familiar with…
AN INDEPENDENT CITIZEN RADIOACTIVITY MONITORING NETWORK IS FINALLY BORN TO INFORM TRUTHFULLY AND CREDIBLY THE US REDISENTS OF DAILY RADS ACROSS .THE NATION, AND TO GIVE POSSIBLE ALERTS IF NECESSARY.
CONNECT TO SHARE, LEARN AND INFORM.
My Japanese daughter 30 years, was born and lives in the city of Iwaki, Fukushima Prefecture, 60 km from the Fukushima Daiichi plant
Therefore I have been following tightly the events of Fukushima.
I am the main administrator of Fukushima 311 Watchdogs with a FB page , FB group and 2 blogs.
It is true that the hoaxes and exaggerations of all kinds do not serve the cause of the victims in Fukushima.
However it is clear that your article has a minimalist effect that bothers me :
1 . You cite no 3 CORIUMS out of control
2 . You do not mention the volume of contaminated water released into the Pacific for almost 3 years
3 . You support the “dilution” of the contamination in the Pacific to be safe , though it is not oil , radionuclides are “dispersed” and do not lose their lethal capacity in their dispersion , unlike in dilution.
4 . You do no talk about all those people still living in highly contaminated areas that the government did not evacuate .
5 . You do no mention that the Japanese government wants to bring back the majority of evacuees to live in areas of high radioactivity.
The overall effect of the content of your article , despite its good title is minimalist and disturbing.
On the other hand your lack of public visibility vis-à -vis of Fukushima raises many questions.
Where is the spirit of Greenpeace 70s gone ?
Greenpeace article: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/yes-things-are-very-bad-at-fukushima-but-its-/blog/47984/
BREAKING NEWS: This is an email from the EPA to air quality districts that were to monitor for radiation fallout back in 2011 from Fukushima. This was obtained with a Freedom of Information Act request by University of California Santa Cruz lecturer Dan Hirsch who has been a radiation expert for over 40 year .The highlighted sentence says, “EPA HQ has decided at this time to not deploy the deployable RADNET monitors to CA, OR and WA.” So at the height of the emergency the central coast, the very spot where the radioactive plume was supposed to hit, the EPA had no working monitors for the air quality in Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo or Santa Barbara counties. Why?!
HERE’S THE THING: Typically when it comes to environmental disasters, the EPA takes the lead role in reporting environmental disasters to the public. But in the case of Fukushima, in March and April 2011, at the height of the Fukushima emergency, the pronuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the pronuclear Department of Energy stepped in and told the EPA we’ll take things from here. Why was that?? That needs to be investigated. Why was the typical role of the EPA usurped like that?
So we really have no clue how much radiation was in the air on the central coast in the days and weeks after the Fukushima accident thanks to the government’s purposeful coverup. DID THE NUCLEAR LOVING NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND THE NUCLEAR LOVING DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SUGGEST TO THE EPA THAT THEY DO THIS??? After all, they were running the show at the time. A Congressional investigation needs to be launched to find out.
Hirsch said we do know from a monitor in Bakersfield, before it broke in mid-march, that radioactive air quality was spiking.
WHOSE IDEA WAS IT TO NOT MONITOR THE AREAS THAT PROJECTIONS WERE SAYING WOULD BE HARDEST HIT BY THE NUCLEAR PLUME?? WE SURE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW. Knowing what was coming, somebody’s thinking was if we don’t monitor the nuclear poison, we can say it doesn’t exist. The agency that came up with that plan needs to be held accountable. http://www.kionrightnow.com/news/local-news/part-two-fukashima-fallout-concerns-on-the-central-coast/-/23047192/23852272/-/101tua7/-/index.html