Environment & Energy

mother earth

(6,002 posts)

2. When exactly is this going to be deemed a global threat? Wonder when the cancer rates will show

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:44 AM

Jan 2013

a sharp increase, esp. on the USA West coast?

If it's not enough for radiation to continually be streamed into the food supply and ocean, what the hell is going to set off alarm bells? Why aren't scientists (like this guy in the article) screaming about this themselves & asking our own gov't to take action?

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

64 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sky-High Radiation Found in Fukushima Fish [View all] xchrom Jan 2013 OP

More from the article: PearliePoo2 Jan 2013 #1

When exactly is this going to be deemed a global threat? Wonder when the cancer rates will show mother earth Jan 2013 #2

One quick comment MAD Dave Jan 2013 #3

No Flaming but... PearliePoo2 Jan 2013 #5

Fukushima Radiation Found In California Tuna PearliePoo2 Jan 2013 #6

Many fish are migratory so the dilution is not going to help there flamingdem Jan 2013 #7

Sure it would. FBaggins Jan 2013 #62

That formula is only viable for a gamma point source. Sirveri Jan 2013 #10

Mercury is a different bird altogether. MAD Dave Jan 2013 #64

Sounds like you'd be a great help to the Japanese gov't...dump everything into the ocean, our work mother earth Jan 2013 #14

Was that really what was said? No. Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #26

You are assuming that ocean currents don't exist and sea life does not move around. kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #51

Rep. Markey wrote an excellent letter to NOAA and the FDA asking pertinent questions... PearliePoo2 Jan 2013 #4

Let's hope Markey continues his work from the Senate! He's great n/t flamingdem Jan 2013 #8

"Everybody RELAX." bvar22 Jan 2013 #9

No scientist is saying there's nothing to worry about. wtmusic Jan 2013 #11

Maybe, maybe not. bvar22 Jan 2013 #13

It may be true! PamW Jan 2013 #17

Sad, really chervilant Jan 2013 #22

A picture is worth a thousand words. PamW Jan 2013 #25

Condescension chervilant Jan 2013 #39

Pot calling the kettle black.. PamW Jan 2013 #41

Again? chervilant Jan 2013 #44

It's NOT presumption PamW Jan 2013 #46

OIC chervilant Jan 2013 #47

Why would I be lucky.. PamW Jan 2013 #48

Wow, Pam chervilant Jan 2013 #53

Bvar was correct kristopher Jan 2013 #56

Indeed chervilant Jan 2013 #57

WRONG AGAIN!!! PamW Jan 2013 #59

Self-serving propaganda? chervilant Jan 2013 #63

Damn it, Kris - I said PWR!!! PamW Jan 2013 #58

You've been pitching that strawman for about a year now. - Correction FBaggins Jan 2013 #60

Straw man speaking there. Updated. longship Jan 2013 #27

Actually, YOUR post is the Strawman. bvar22 Jan 2013 #28

It didn't come off like that. longship Jan 2013 #29

Revisionist History - INCORRECT!!! PamW Jan 2013 #30

Well, you are selective in your history here. longship Jan 2013 #33

More REVISIONIST history PamW Jan 2013 #34

A Clarification longship Jan 2013 #35

If you don't like the response; don't make the mistake. PamW Jan 2013 #36

Mea culpa for my early morning post. longship Jan 2013 #38

Wonder how the fish survived? wtmusic Jan 2013 #12

Another WTF???!!? Adding radiation into the deadly mix isn't helping the planet or humanity. mother earth Jan 2013 #15

Perspective is important wtmusic Jan 2013 #16

Continuing the math.... PamW Jan 2013 #19

Maybe your number is applicable today, but the worst of it is yet to be realized IMHO. I think mother earth Jan 2013 #20

Whether people invest in solar, wind or nuclear, the profit motive is always involved wtmusic Jan 2013 #23

The risks for nuclear power are far too great, and the companies in charge of the sites are mother earth Jan 2013 #24

You've fallen for the anti-nuclear screed, hook, line, and sinker. PamW Jan 2013 #31

You forgot how "scientists" can be stifled & paid off, or must answer to the corporate sponsor or mother earth Jan 2013 #40

That's CRAP and you should know it. PamW Jan 2013 #42

BS, tell that to those that GWB enlisted for his agenda, climate deniers...sorry, YOU have it wrong. mother earth Jan 2013 #43

BALONEY!!! PamW Jan 2013 #45

Spare me your long winded comparisons & try to be succinct. You are writing off alternatives when mother earth Jan 2013 #49

Ignorance of Science doesn't cut it. PamW Jan 2013 #50

Alternative energy is within the realms of science. You are just being ignorant to say it isn't. mother earth Jan 2013 #52

Getting the physics and math right does matter... caraher Jan 2013 #54

McKay's presentation can be very misleading kristopher Jan 2013 #55

Thanks, kristopher caraher Jan 2013 #61

Perspective... PamW Jan 2013 #18

I probably have, but since this OT is about Fukushima, I didn't bring up these other issues as you mother earth Jan 2013 #21

Tradeoffs... PamW Jan 2013 #32

I don't normally get into these wrangles GliderGuider Jan 2013 #37