150,000 SQ.KM of Pacific with Fukushima nuclear material - ‘Remarkable’ amount released in ocean

[Mr. Eneos]

42. Apples and Oranges versus Bananas and Tuna

Gosh - What an interesting post. You write well, and are obviously intelligent. And, you are obviously well acquainted with the major issues and talking points. But, your rhetoric is a mish-mash of half-truths, errors, myths, logical fallacies, patronization (talking down to), ridicule, rhetorical questions ... What's up with all that?

You seem to be saying that you agree there is "no safe level of exposure" but then proceed to ridicule that very premise. That's confusing.

You said, "Take the Pacific bluefin tuna reported on last month" and talk about the tuna that was tested. So, you know about the contaminated tuna that showed up in California waters. Without getting into an argument about the data you quote, your point seems to be that there is K-40 (Potassium 40) in the tuna, and therefore the Fukushima radionuclides, being lower in concentration than the K-40, is insignificant. Right? (It's hard to pin down your point.)

Well, your conclusion depends on the relative health dangers of Potassium 40 and Cesium 137. You relate the health dangers in terms of Bq/Kg. There are multiple errors in that formulation.

1. Bq/Kg (Which means the number of radioactive disintegrations per second in each kilogram) doesn't distinguish between the kind of radiation - alpha, beta, or gamma - and the difference is crucial in estimating the effect on health. Even within some emissions, there are important differences - Such as the so-called "soft beta" particle, which is a lower energy beta, and contrary to expectations is more damaging to living organisms than more energetic beta emissions.

2. You don't make any reference to the body's response to K-40 versus Cs-137. Humans have been eating bananas for a long time, and if there were any danger in it we'd probably know by now. In fact, our bodies maintain a constant level of Potassium - whether stabile or radioactive, and when we ingest some, if it's more than we need, we then excrete the excess. So, you can eat bananas by the bunch day after day and never increase your body-load of Potassium. And as for the particular health impact of radioactive Potassium 40, a naturally occurring isotope which Earth's creatures have evolved with and adjusted to, it can be considered normal and non-harmful since the environment in which we evolved is the baseline for determinations of health effects (differences from what is normal.) In other words, the real meaning of "no safe level of exposure" is "No safe level of increase above the natural background radiation," and "natural" in this context excludes the radioactive contamination of our biosphere due to human nuclear activities since the early 20th Century.

3. If half of the tuna tested contains Cs137, and we don't have practical means of testing each mouthful, then it follows that we assume a 50% risk of internal contamination from eating a mouthful from any particular tuna. Each mouthful multiplies the internal dose if that tuna is dirty, and each subsequent dirty sandwich during one's lifetime adds to the physiological damage.

4. “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes”

I'm just getting my socks on.