Just found a fairly interesting article on Fukushima radiation in Atlantic sealife being discovered by a Canadian schoolkid. I was trying to
cut 'n paste it here for y'all's viewing pleasure, but my console-only limitations are holding me back a little bit here. It seems that having a console width of 104 characters, using lynx to view the article, and trying to cut 'n paste it to an 80 terminal screen for the BBS doesn't work the best without a text reformatter. Whodathunkit?
Obviously I need more coffee this morning. Anyway, here's the link if anybody wants to see about this? I'm interested in what our west coasters might have to say about this, other than OMG must emulate ostrich and bury
head on the radioactive beach. ;)

http://www.silverdoctors.com/school-science-project-reveals-high-levels-of-fukushima-nuclear-radiation-in-grocery-store-seafood/

-- guh up the effbomb down wif yr bad self


---
þ Synchronet þ Tinfoil Tetrahedron BBS telnet://bismaninfo.hopto.org:8023/ 1:282/1057

On 4/5/2014 6:40 AM, Khelair wrote:

Just found a fairly interesting article on Fukushima radiation in Atlantic sealife being discovered by a Canadian schoolkid. I was trying to

Stupid Japan in the Atlantic stinkin' up my fish. ;P

cut 'n paste it here for y'all's viewing pleasure, but my console-only limitations are holding me back a little bit here. It seems that having a console width of 104 characters, using lynx to view the article, and trying to
cut 'n paste it to an 80 terminal screen for the BBS doesn't work the best without a text reformatter. Whodathunkit?
Obviously I need more coffee this morning. Anyway, here's the link if anybody wants to see about this? I'm interested in what our west coasters might have to say about this, other than OMG must emulate ostrich and bury head on the radioactive beach. ;)

http://www.silverdoctors.com/school-science-project-reveals-high-levels-of-fukushima-nuclear-radiation-in-grocery-store-seafood/

I would be curious to here the opionion of a west coaster such as
Dosimeter Man.. er.. Digital Man. I am sure Dose.. er.. Deuce can weigh
in also.

Also, does the fish grow brighter so they can confirm it was
contaminanted by fukushima and not from Marshall Islands where US tested nukes?

So I see your article and raise you:

http://www.ploughshares.org/blog/2013-08-19/fukushima-bad-testing-was-worse

-Mindless Automaton



I can joke because I live on the east coast. ;P

-Mindless Automaton
---
þ Synchronet þ Eldritch Clockwork BBS - eldritch.darktech.org

Re: Re: Fukushima radiation on the USA's west coast?
By: Mindless Automaton to Khelair on Sun Apr 06 2014 22:45:37

I would be curious to here the opionion of a west coaster such as
Dosimeter Man.. er.. Digital Man. I am sure Dose.. er.. Deuce can weigh
in also.

Also, does the fish grow brighter so they can confirm it was
contaminanted by fukushima and not from Marshall Islands where US tested nukes?

Nah, they just leave pus trails to track them by ;)

So I see your article and raise you:

http://www.ploughshares.org/blog/2013-08-19/fukushima-bad-testing-was-worse

Oh, I know it. If you get a chance, check out the documentary 'Radio Bikini' about the Bikini island test. That shit will blow your socks off. Unbelievable what they did to so many unconsenting individuals, not to mention mother Earf itself. If you want to see it, and can't find a torrent with enough peers, let me know; I've got a copy, it's free, and it's not the most common documentary out there. I can throw up a new torrent and make sure I'm doing dedicated and/or preferential seeding for you.


-- guh up the effbomb down wif yr bad self


---
þ Synchronet þ Tinfoil Tetrahedron BBS telnet://bismaninfo.hopto.org:8023/ 1:282/1057

Re: Fukushima radiation on the USA's west coast?
By: Khelair to All on Sat Apr 05 2014 05:40 am

Obviously I need more coffee this morning. Anyway, here's the link
if anybody wants to see about this? I'm interested in what our west coasters might have to say about this, other than OMG must emulate ostrich and bury head on the radioactive beach. ;)
http://www.silverdoctors.com/school-science-project-reveals-high-levels-of- fukushima-nuclear-radiation-in-grocery-store-seafood/

Well, this is pretty crap "reporting". Some of her counts for the kelp was marginally above established safe levels. She has a cheap geiger counter and we don't know how good her measurements were taken. Other than the kelp, there
were no other items with unsafe levels. The statement then that these "tested very high for radiation" is clearly wrong just from the information in the article itself.

Then there's the statement that "cesium-137 was being found in a very high percentage of the fish that Japan was selling to Canada" which is what would be
expected. The levels are safe though if you fillow the link provided on that page. It says that one in five fish had levels exceeding 1/10th of that considered safe. None are mentioned as having levels which exceed the Canadian
1000 becquerels per kg standard for radiation in food.

After cherry-picking some exciting tidbits from the article, it asks "So why was radiation testing for seafood shut down in Canada in 2012?" However, in that very same article, you find the answer...

It conducted some radiation tests on food imports from areas of Japan around the stricken nuclear plant in the weeks after the Fukushima accident.

Only one of the 169 tested products showed any radiation. CFIA stopped doing the tests last June, saying they weren't needed.

"The quantities of radioactive material reaching Canada are very small and within normal ranges," CFIA spokesperson Lisa Gauthier said in an emailed statement.

"They do not pose any health risk to Canadians, the food we eat or the plants and animals in Canada."

"It is certainly our expectation that the CFIA will test again this year," said
Christina Burridge, executive director of the B.C. Seafood Alliance.

But yeah, actually looking at the facts, then making a rational dscision based on them just just burying our heads in a radioactive beach. Really we should just take sensationallist reporting as fact and just stop eating food. This article asks a lot of leading questions which are answered in the linked sources, they just don't have the sort of anwers the authour wants, so they just ask leading questions instead.

---
http://DuckDuckGo.com/ a better search engine that respects your privacy.
þ Synchronet þ My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)

Re: Fukushima radiation on the USA's west coast?
By: Deuce to Khelair on Mon Apr 07 2014 17:39:57

Re: Fukushima radiation on the USA's west coast?
By: Khelair to All on Sat Apr 05 2014 05:40 am

Obviously I need more coffee this morning. Anyway, here's the link if anybody wants to see about this? I'm interested in what our west coasters might have to say about this, other than OMG must emulate ostric and bury head on the radioactive beach. ;)

Well, this is pretty crap "reporting". Some of her counts for the kelp was marginally above established safe levels. She has a cheap geiger counter an we don't know how good her measurements were taken. Other than the kelp, th were no other items with unsafe levels. The statement then that these "test very high for radiation" is clearly wrong just from the information in the article itself.

OMG and to think that I used to have respect for you as a coder and an intelligent person. ;) We're all going to die and you're obviously flawed
for thinking that it's not for sensational Enquirer-esque reasons.

Then there's the statement that "cesium-137 was being found in a very high percentage of the fish that Japan was selling to Canada" which is what would expected. The levels are safe though if you fillow the link provided on tha page. It says that one in five fish had levels exceeding 1/10th of that considered safe. None are mentioned as having levels which exceed the Canad 1000 becquerels per kg standard for radiation in food.

Is that safe with today's levels, or the pre-Fukushima levels of Canada's agencies and the FDA? Or is that another tinfoil hat claim? I'm not trying to bait or be sarcastic here, I'm genuinely serious, because I've tried to track this information down and failed fairly miserably, at least as far as sources that I can easily identify as legitimate.

After cherry-picking some exciting tidbits from the article, it asks "So why was radiation testing for seafood shut down in Canada in 2012?" However, in that very same article, you find the answer...

It conducted some radiation tests on food imports from areas of Japan around the stricken nuclear plant in the weeks after the Fukushima accident.

Only one of the 169 tested products showed any radiation. CFIA stopped doing the tests last June, saying they weren't needed.

So, um, what happened to radiological import testing?

"The quantities of radioactive material reaching Canada are very small and within normal ranges," CFIA spokesperson Lisa Gauthier said in an emailed statement.

Well yeah; normal, of course, defined as whatever the government currently says that it is.

"They do not pose any health risk to Canadians, the food we eat or the plant and animals in Canada."

"It is certainly our expectation that the CFIA will test again this year," s Christina Burridge, executive director of the B.C. Seafood Alliance.

But yeah, actually looking at the facts, then making a rational dscision bas on them just just burying our heads in a radioactive beach. Really we shoul just take sensationallist reporting as fact and just stop eating food. This article asks a lot of leading questions which are answered in the linked sources, they just don't have the sort of anwers the authour wants, so they just ask leading questions instead.

*grin* Well, I'm going to go through this reply that you made (which
I greatly appreciate; I'll be the first one to admit that I am reposting
things like this more to generate discussion and interest in the possibilities than due to any effort to validate the facts within them at this point-- I've spent most of my time doing research like that validating claims that I stumbled across evidence to validate since my time in the military, ie REX-84 preparations and the like) and attempt to follow up on every bibliographical source that you've given here, then. Of course, I'll be looking for peer reviewed scientific analysis, not government talking points, as they are specifically what is in question here. I mean, seriously, that's like a woman taking a guy's word when he comes up to her out of the blue and offhandedly mentions that he's got a >7 inch hang.




-- guh up the effbomb down wif yr bad self


---
þ Synchronet þ Tinfoil Tetrahedron BBS telnet://bismaninfo.hopto.org:8023/ 1:282/1057

Re: Fukushima radiation on the USA's west coast?
By: Deuce to Khelair on Mon Apr 07 2014 17:39:57

But yeah, actually looking at the facts, then making a rational dscision bas on them just just burying our heads in a radioactive beach. Really we shoul just take sensationallist reporting as fact and just stop eating food. This article asks a lot of leading questions which are answered in the linked sources, they just don't have the sort of anwers the authour wants, so they just ask leading questions instead.

Whoops. Couldn't find any of the source links that you were quoting there. Can you provide any, possibly? I did manage to include _that_ much with my original post, at least. :P


-- guh up the effbomb down wif yr bad self


---
þ Synchronet þ Tinfoil Tetrahedron BBS telnet://bismaninfo.hopto.org:8023/ 1:282/1057

Re: Fukushima radiation on the USA's west coast?
By: Khelair to Deuce on Tue Apr 08 2014 02:46 pm

Is that safe with today's levels, or the pre-Fukushima levels of Canada's agencies and the FDA? Or is that another tinfoil hat claim? I'm not trying to bait or be sarcastic here, I'm genuinely serious, because
I've tried to track this information down and failed fairly miserably, at least as far as sources that I can easily identify as legitimate.

It's that safe today. They'll be checking more as the radiactivity spreads. The standards for "safe" levels were set years ago and not adjusted after Fukushima.

---
http://DuckDuckGo.com/ a better search engine that respects your privacy.
þ Synchronet þ My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)

Re: Fukushima radiation on the USA's west coast? -- bibliographical links?
By: Khelair to Deuce on Tue Apr 08 2014 02:47 pm

Whoops. Couldn't find any of the source links that you were quoting there. Can you provide any, possibly? I did manage to include _that_ much with my original post, at least. :P

They were all linked from the article you linked.

---
http://DuckDuckGo.com/ a better search engine that respects your privacy.
þ Synchronet þ My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)

Re: Fukushima radiation on the USA's west coast?
By: Deuce to Khelair on Mon Apr 21 2014 14:56:55

It's that safe today. They'll be checking more as the radiactivity spreads. The standards for "safe" levels were set years ago and not adjusted after Fukushima.

I'm gonna try to see if I can find verification of that
somewhere. Maybe old FDA or Dept. of Ag. publications or something. I
have seen that crap about the FDA/EPA and the Canadian equivalent touted
so frigging much as far as how they raised the standards for 'safe'
bequerels in food and the environment ever since Fukushima first
happened that I really want to have a citation on it, should this be the
case. At least I'll be able to go back to the people that first got me thinking that this was the case and shove the citation in their faces.
:P Maybe they'll be a little less quick to tout such theories as fact
in the future, unless they're just straight up trying to scare the shit
out of people for fun.


-- guh up the effbomb down wif yr bad self


---
þ Synchronet þ Tinfoil Tetrahedron BBS telnet://bismaninfo.hopto.org:8023/ 1:282/1057

Re: Re: Fukushima radiation on the USA's west coast?
By: Khelair to Deuce on Tue Apr 22 2014 07:33 am

It's that safe today. They'll be checking more as the radiactivity
spreads. The standards for "safe" levels were set years ago and not
adjusted after Fukushima.

I'm gonna try to see if I can find verification of that
somewhere. Maybe old FDA or Dept. of Ag. publications or something. I

Let eme know when you find it. I want this data too.
Knight

---
þ Synchronet þ The Phunc BBS -- Back from the dead! -- telnet to bbs.phunc.com

Re: Re: Fukushima radiation on the USA's west coast?
By: Knight to Khelair on Wed May 07 2014 08:08:22

It's that safe today. They'll be checking more as the radiactivity
spreads. The standards for "safe" levels were set years ago and not
adjusted after Fukushima.

I'm gonna try to see if I can find verification of that
somewhere. Maybe old FDA or Dept. of Ag. publications or something. I

Let eme know when you find it. I want this data too.

Oh, thanks for replying. I ended up losing the post-it to be looking for this data, I'll get on that crap right nao.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Guh up the effbomb down wif yr bad self; seriously. That means 'shut
the effbomb up, in the parlance of the first child I raised from birth
on . . . I recommend it because my patience with people that are only
interested in passing judgement and making pointless jabs without
knowing the exact facts about what they're dealing with is waning.
Consider yrself warned.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

---
þ Synchronet þ Tinfoil Tetrahedron BBS telnet://bismaninfo.hopto.org:8023/ 1:282/1057

Re: Re: Fukushima radiation on the USA's west coast?
By: Knight to Khelair on Wed May 07 2014 08:08:22

Let eme know when you find it. I want this data too.

Best I've found so far is this:
* http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/04/10/epa-draft-stirs-fears-of-radically-relaxed-radiation-guidelines

I'm gonna do some more looking in a bit here,
but I figured I'd drop that here first just in case my
tasks take me beyond my ability to stay awake tonight
before I get back to looking more into this. The link
that I cuntpasted here seems to indicate that the FDA
hasdn't (at the time of apr. 2013) actually lowered
its standards, but it had printed an interim guideline
at one point that directed agencies responding to
water source and other natural resource hazard cleanups
to not bother until it hit a point some 27,000 times
more contaminated than the original 'acceptable limit'.
Some of the wording in that article and the quotes
from the federal responses to inquiry about it are
worded carefully enough that you can kind of see them
fencing around it. It's worth a peek, IMO.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Guh up the effbomb down wif yr bad self; seriously. That means 'shut
the effbomb up, in the parlance of the first child I raised from birth
on . . . I recommend it because my patience with people that are only
interested in passing judgement and making pointless jabs without
knowing the exact facts about what they're dealing with is waning.
Consider yrself warned.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

---
þ Synchronet þ Tinfoil Tetrahedron BBS telnet://bismaninfo.hopto.org:8023/ 1:282/1057