Fukushima Dai-ichi Radiation

There is lots of information out there on the internets…

Here is a post I put together on this map that was misused: Radiation or Tsunami?

Here is a compilation of some information regarding the nuclear disaster in Japan that followed the Tohoku-Oki earthquake of 11 March 2011.

This is my rationale:
Just to be clear, I am simply placing sources of information online. I am not writing any commentary or making any points other than applying a basic criteria of credibility. I rank these sources into 3 groups, (1) likely credible, (2) possibly credible, but with uncertainty, and (3) total crap.
This apparent credibility rating is very simple. If the source has some level of review (peer science or editorial board), it falls into category 1 (though if I find problems, I will point them out.). If the source seems correct/credible, but is not under any apparent review, it fits into category 2. If there is any misinformation in a source, it ends up in the last category. There may be credible information in the sources of group 3, but we need to be critical of all of this stuff. In my opinion, if there is any material that is untrue, how can we trust that source of information? I opine that we cannot. Very simple.
For our mutual benefit, I include some links to sources that do debunk a few sources in group 3. That is not what I am doing, I am merely putting this information out there for “you” to make “your” own decision. Believe what you want, but if someone posts something that is clearly based on poorly informed information, that post will quickly fall into group 3.

I. These are real journalistic and expert testimony based sources:

  • 2018.03.06 Current Results from Woods Hole. “Since March 2011, when a tsunami damaged the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan, we have documented the ongoing release of radioactive isotopes of cesium into the Pacific. We have focused on cesium is because it was one of the most abundant radioactive contaminants released, and some forms of it can remain in the environment for decades. Over the last seven years, with the help of citizen scientists around the Pacific as well as through research cruises and field expeditions, we have been able to track the spread of this element across the ocean and now along the western U,S, and Canadian coastlines.”
  • “Since March 2011, when a tsunami damaged the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan, we have documented the ongoing release of radioactive isotopes of cesium into the Pacific. We have focused on cesium is because it was one of the most abundant radioactive contaminants released, and some forms of it can remain in the environment for decades. Over the last seven years, with the help of citizen scientists around the Pacific as well as through research cruises and field expeditions, we have been able to track the spread of this element across the ocean and now along the western U,S, and Canadian coastlines.”

  • 2017.01.11 Update from Alaska written by Chris Klint. This is an article about recent findings from the Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation. The report is from this organization and the article has links to the prior reports.
  • 2015/12/03 Update from Dr. Ken Buesseler (Woods Hole)

    • The level of radioactive cesium isotopes in the sample, 11 Becquerel’s per cubic meter of seawater (about 264 gallons), is 50 percent higher than other samples collected along the West Coast so far, but is still more than 500 times lower than US government safety limits for drinking water, and well below limits of concern for direct exposure while swimming, boating, or other recreational activities.

    and, the best news of all:

    Levels today off Japan are thousands of times lower than during the peak releases in 2011. That said, finding values that are still elevated off Fukushima confirms that there is continued release from the plant

  • 2015/11/30 Update from Chris Klint at Alaska Dispatch, “Alaska seafood again tests free of Fukushima radiation.” Here is a link to the data collected this year (pdf). *Note: ND = Not Detected

    • For a second year, seafood taken from Alaska waters has tested negative for radiation from Japan’s 2011 Fukushima tsunami and nuclear disaster, state officials say.

  • 2015/04/02: Since I just saw a link (placed in category 3 below) that shows there continues to be an interest to scare people unnecessarily, I found some more information out there. Here is a page where data from sea water measurements of radiation are being posted. One may click on a bubble to find out the level of radiation in any given location. These data have been collected for the past several years. Click away.
  • Here is a great paper that describes, in clear terms (easy to understand by the non-expert), why we need not worry about eating tuna due to radiation from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear disaster. Basically, if one did not avoid tuna due to radiation before the earthquake, there is no reason to avoid tuna due to radiation following the earthquake.
    Evaluation of radiation doses and associated risk from the Fukushima nuclear accident to marine biota and human consumers of seafood Also, this paper describes the basic concepts of dosage and radiation measurements (and why someone going around with a Geiger counter is fooling themselves). Everyone concerned about Fukushima should read the abstract (1st paragraph) and the introduction (next 4-5 paragraphs before the methods).
  • 2013/11/28: This is an amazing review of the scientific assessment of the radiological impact from Fukushima. Written by Dr. Martini, a physical oceanographer (study of the motion of water in bodies of water like the ocean) at the University of Washington. True facts about Ocean Radiation and the Fukushima Disaster I am averse to the word “true” in title, but I cannot really hold that against anyone. Dr. Martini uses journal articles and a couple academic sources for the material on this page. In my opinion, this is one of the best summaries to date. Thanks Mike W. for sharing this with me.
  1. 2013/08/28: This is an excellent FAQ from Ken Buesseler, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. FAQ: Radiation from Fukushima
  2. Here is a powerpoint presentation from Ken Buesseler, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. FAQ: Radiation from Fukushima Dr. Buessler discusses Cs as it pertains to the oceanic sea water and sediments. We indeed need to continue to expand our studies.
  • This is the wiki page on the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant There is lots of information here. Make sure you look at the references to make sure you can test any claims made on this page. Wiki sites are not always reliable, but they are a group voice and are moderated.
  • 2014/01/19: Here is a nice article in The Province, written by Dan Fumano. This looks like it is reviewed by an editor or editorial staff. He walks the reader through several of the hype based pages regardign Fukushima radiation. There are now several good sources available for the lay person and this is one of them. Half-Lives And Half-Truths: Discovering the truth about five of the most widespread myths of the Fukushima disaster “The Province looks into all the rumours, rampant Internet speculation and outright fear mongering surrounding the world’s worst nuclear accident in 28 years and gets to the bottom of it all.”
  • Here is graphic about radiation levels by Randall Munroe: Radiation Dose ChartRadiation While this seems relatively correct, he has his own disclaimer here: I waive all copyright to this chart and place it in the public domain, so you are free to reuse it anywhere with no permission necessary. (However, keep in mind that I am not a radiation expert, and this chart is intended for general public informational use only.) Here are his sources
  • 2012/07/09: Here is an article about modeling of tracers in oceanic currents. This is a model and is not based on actual measurements of radiation concentrations in seawater. Here is a disclaimer about their model results from their abstract: “The simulations do not include any data assimilation, and thus, do not account for the actual state of the local ocean currents during the release of highly contaminated water from the damaged plants in March–April 2011.” Model simulations on the long-term dispersal of 137Cs released into the Pacific Ocean off Fukushima
  • 2013/04/10: Here is a FORBES article regarding “draft” changes in reporting guidelines, written By Jeff McMahon. I think this is an article, but if someone informs me this is a blog, i will move it into group 2. EPA Draft Stirs Fears of Radically Relaxed Radiation Guidelines There are baseless claims that the EPA relaxed radiation guidelines as a response to the nuclear disaster in Japan. These changes were actually initiated during the Bush presidency and did not become a draft until over a year after the earthquake. Another example that we cannot believe everything we think (or read). Here is the draft PAG manual as a pdf.
  • 2013/10/02: Here is an article about models of cancer based on radiation exposure. The cancers (75) estimated outside of Japan are largely based on fish that came from Japan. These are just models. Of course, this article does not really describe their analysis, so this link may belong in the next section (even though there are presumably editors checking this out). Fish data belie Japan’s claims on Fukushima There are other web sites that source this article, but read this one since it is the source.
  • 2013/12/05: Here is an article from Japan’s public news. The author, Yoichiro Tateiwa, writes about what TEPCO is doing to clean things up there. Inside Fukushima Daiichi
  • 2013/11/02: A CBC article about radiation measured in Alaska. Radiation from Japan nuclear plant arrives on Alaska coast Scientists concerned about lack of monitoring plan This article does not have an author, so is probably the result of a collaboration from the news staff, probably directed or managed by the editorial staff. I am not sure. One thing I am certain of is that the claims made in this article are not backed up. Even though this is a news article, we can learn about how to critique news sources beyond my simple rules of credibility. What levels of radiation were measured? Are they significant? This article mostly poses a question, rather than news (even though they probably had the information to answer the question they posed).
  • 2013/12/28: Here is a translation of a series of TEPCO press releases. There is not much we can conclude based on these releases, but here it is. Steam coming from Fukushima Unit 3 reactor building — Observed multiple times this week
  • 2013/12/31: Here is a carbon copy of the ene page. Not really adding value, but here it is for us all to look at. Steam coming from Fukushima Unit 3 reactor building — Observed multiple times this week Note that even the headline is the same.
      • The 11 March 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake and tsunami (forthcoming).

      • Information about the original earthquake and tsunami (draft now, updates soon).
      • Here is information about a M 7.1 extensional earthquake “up-dip” (east) of the 11 Mar 2011 earthquake.

     II. These are opinion pages and blogs that are possibly less credible (difficult to tell since they have different standards than the above links):

    • Blog post from a visitor to Fukushima. Fukushima Parks: One-hour Time Limit for Playing While most of my links are regarding the northeast Pacific where I live, I include this link because it shows how information in Japan is not really always reliable either (note the level of radiation threshold for notification and the measurement level posted on the sign and measured by Akemi. This is still just a blog (that has a different threshold for credibility), but it does reveal some details about communication about radiation in Japan.
    • 2013/11/19: Here is an interview with anti-nuclear activist Harvey Wasserman, interviewed by Laura Flanders. Thruthout is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation that prides itself upon being free from corporate influence (of course, non profits are corporations, but lets not quibble with that). They post news and opinions and I find it difficult to tell if this story is an opinion piece or a news article that has been reviewed by editors. If it is a news piece, then the editors failed to find independent sources of information to test Wasserman’s claims (that can be tested with a “minutes long” internet search). Because of this, I place this source in group II. “Chernobyl Was Transparent Compared to Fukushima”: Harvey Wasserman on Ongoing Crisis Wasserman makes some false claims (e.g. the tuna), but there is some truth to what he says about the potential. He also misstates that the radiation will hit the west coast this year. He should say “may” since we do not really know. This is a distinction that a scientist would make but a layperson may not make. Therefore, in my opinion, Wasserman is a layperson and not a researcher. This interview almost belongs in category III based on the misinformation.
    • Here is an interview with a sailor Ivan Macfadyen, interviewed by Greg Ray The ocean is broken Macfadyen’s observations may have nothing to do with Fukushima, we will never really know.
    • This is another summary of sources on this subject, which pastes the content from its sources into a single one-stop-shop blog. Since the material is directly linked to the sources, one can easily check their credibility. Fukushima Update Since this is a blog and not a unique source of information, it stays in group II. This is a great place to go for a summary of information.
    • Here is this blog from me (haha) Fukushima Radiation Just keeping it real here. I am not trying to make any claims, just segregate sources of information, some better than others. I do not have any real information on my web page, so I fit in this section of blogs and opinion pages.

     III. Here is the crap that we need to avoid.

    Generally, these are not credible sources of information. Some of what you might read on these pages may be true, but it may be difficult to tell what is true and what is not. my guess is that maybe half the stuff in these low credibility sites is true, but can you tell which half? probably more like 10% is true, if that. not even wasting more time on this. over it. as evidenced by the apparent confusion of a mr. anthony lucerno on facebook, my point is that if 90% of what someone is saying is untrue (or 50% for that matter), how can we trust anything they say or claim?

    • UPDATE 2017.06.22: Thanks to the diligence of some smart people (Ras Danny), people who are critical about their sources of information on the internets, I have become aware of two new stories, one suspiciously similar to the other. These two “articles” have a range of examples that suggest that these are unreliable sources of information. Like I have mentioned elsewhere here, one site is a carbon copy of the other site. This tends to artificially create a sense of credibility (this helps show up on internet searches; also this suggests that these are actually independent sources of information, when they are NOT). There are no sources for the information on the second page and the sources of information on the first page are either also unreliable or taken out of context. There is actually a news report that has some pretty good information (reliable). This video is from TRT News (a Turkish news organization). I include this video embedded below. In addition, these two stories even have the same title. Concluding that these are unreliable sources of information could not be any easier, thanks y’all. Not only are they unreliable, the second article if guilty of plagiarism (though I suspect that these two misinformation peddlers, newstarget and yourneswaire, are run by the same group of people).

    • UPDATE 2017.02.21 Fukushima Radiation Has Contaminated The Entire Pacific Ocean (And It’s Going To Get Worse). This site brings red flags because they are using that NOAA tsunami wave elevation model map to bring peoples’ attention to this page. The first few paragraphs appear OK (there is an ongoing disaster at the Fukashima-Daiichi nuclear power plant), however, they immediately take a downturn. There is an image of debris in the sea water that cannot possibly be radiated from Fuke (if this is indeed debris from the tsunami, the tsunami caused the disaster, so the radiation leaks happened AFTER the tsunami). Then they go on to discuss the star fish wasting disease that is demonstrably unrelated to Fukashima (just do an internet search for credible sources on this!). Once I find a dishonest representation of reality, I begin to question the entire news source. It does not matter if there are real facts sprinkled about, that does not make it OK to lie. In fact, that is one of the best ways to get people to think that one is telling the truth! Don’t be fooled by this strategy of subterfuge. Be diligent and seek information sources that do not use dishonest strategies. Most every source of information in Category III uses this strategy.
      • This site is a duplicate of the above one, one of the strategies used to increase the exposure (pun not intended) of sets of information. Now I know that I can completely ignore the alternativemediasundicate website. These aren’t the droids you are looking for.
    • 2017.02.14 Written by William Boardman Fukushima Out of Control: Radiation Levels Significantly Higher than “Unimaginable” is another piece from GR.ca. As presented and reviewed before (below), GR.ca is a right wing conspiracy theory website that discusses conspiracy theories as if they are based on factual data. The author actually posted a copied article from a different website. There is a problem at the power plant, but this is not a place to find credible information about this. Check out some updates in Category I.
    • 2016.03.11 An anonymous reporter (which raises red flags of course!!!) began writing about their observations from a Geiger counter. They have been updating these measurements here. Below there are numerous websites that have similar scenarios, where someone who makes measurements and tries to interpret those measurements. I am not a radiologic technician, but from what I have learned (based upon my review of the material posted on websites in category I), measurements made using Geiger counters cannot distinguish the type of radiation. This is what is required to be able to link any radiation measurements to the source of the radiation. Some of the best examples below of people who are unqualified to interpret radiological measurements is the story about someone who measured radiation in the parking lot near the beach. When compared to the measurements at the beach, the beach radiation levels were much higher. Instead of radiation from the horrible disaster in Japan, they were measuring radiation from feldspar (a mineral) sand grains that were being washed around in the waves. We must be diligent in our efforts to develop skills to evaluate the credibility of information that we find on or off the internet. Now I know that I can avoid the website at enviroreporter forever, unless they remove the content from this website I link here.
    • 2017.02.17 Jim Blake wrote California Braces For Radioactive Rain. I did not need to even read the content on this website to know it was problematic. The figure at the top is clearly intended to envoke omotions, which can sometimes lead people to believe in things that are untrue (or as we now call them, “alt-facts”). Upon skimming the text, we can easily find some more evidence that this website is not a reliable source of information. Below is perhaps the funniest part of the “article.” (in blockquote) I can’t really stop from laughing at the attempt to fool people with misinformation, though it is really scary that anyone would take this web page seriously. If the below quote were not enough, there are an abundance of other problems, including many statements that are not supported by references. e.g. fish die offs. Based on this single page, I know that i can avoid this website, in its entirety, for the rest of my life. Unless, of course, I see that they remove this web page and denounce the content published here. I have an open mind and can change my position. But, if this page stays online, I know that I cannot trust this website as a source of information!

      • Several folks told us they suspect Haarp and they believe Obama purposely caused a draught [sic] in California by creating high pressure systems off the Pacific coast. The reason Obama may have done this was to hide the radiation or to keep it at a minimum. It’s really strange that days after Obama leaves office, the rains come down in California like they haven’t in a century.

    • 2016.12.29: More crapola! Our constitution provides protection for the freedom of speech, so people can continue to spread misinformation at a break-neck speed. This is never more obvious as evidenced by this post here. I now know that humansarefree is a source of information that is absolutely not to be trusted. More fake news here. This page is another rehash of the 22016.09.29 article (linked below), which is in addition to the 2016.12.28 repost by dailyoccupation (also linked below). These three websites are at least fully honest in their portrayal of their level of bogus (in the voice of the Car Talk guys, tm NPR).
    • 2016.12.28: Here is yet another blog post that uses several strategies of misinformation (debris in ocean, starfish, etc.). We are smarter than this, though apparently not all of us. This is the facebook group that shared this link. Further support for this being in category III is that this site is simply rehashed material from the 2016.09.29 trueactivist post from before (see item below). Now we have two more sites that we know we can avoid if we are interested in fact based reasoning: dailyoccupation (fake news page) and earthweareone (fb page).
    • 2013.09.29: Written by Whitney Webb. Here is another blog post full of unrelated banter. This page has lots of links, so it seems like a good source of information (especially since some of the links are to reputable sources). However, there are no reasons to relate these individual sources of information with each other. Further yet, there is actual misinformation on this page. e.g. the attempt to link the starfish wasting syndrome to Fukushima sourced radiation is completely unfounded. There are many examples of this on this page. One example is the statement about the Cesium concentration from ene-news (another source that belongs in group III, as evidenced lower on this page).
    • 2015.10.31: Written by someone so credible, they are named “US Reporter!” This misinformation keeps rearing its head. This “article” is a classic example for the this category of information. There are pieces of information that are haphazardly linked together. At least, they admit that there are no data to suppport their claims. Here is a quote from this article, written by U.S. Reporter:

      While there is no way to tell exactly where in the Pacific Ocean these fish have been, one thing is for certain – they’re ALL from the Pacific Ocean.

      Yup, they are all from the Pacific Ocean. There is so much data available regarding the radiation from Fukushima, one wonders why the writer, US Reporter, has not been able to refer to it.

    • 2015/03/30: I thought we had left this stuff in the dust, but there continues to be more stuff posted about this. Here is an blog post written by Doug Michael. Michael presents more of the same material we find in the older links that I posted below. We can rest assured that anyone who invokes Miley Cyrus into their Fuke blog must be a credible source of information. Sure there is some correct information (e.g. the magnitude of the earthquake), but there is lots of otherwise bad information (e.g. star fish die off, the measurements of radiation like the photo of the dead mammal, etc.) that we know to avoid this blog post. Thanks to facebook, I found this link to share with you.
    • Here is the latest crapola from GR, a blog well known for their posts about haarp and other conspiracy theories Fukushima Radiation Levels Will Concentrate in Pockets at Specific US and Canada West Coast Locations If you are interested in figuring out how to tell if a blog is useless or not, this a great example because it is clear on this page. This blog post is simply a juxtaposition of randomly pasted text and graphics. Sure there are little pieces of information that are credible, but the way the “author” places them together is haphazard and reckless imho. There is no introductory paragraph to bring all this information together, so it is little more useful than a Rorschach test. I would avoid GR like the plague, if I am interested in using the best and most credible information with which to base my opinions.
    • 2013/12/28: Here is the latest fear-based blog post, written by Susanne Posel of Occupy Corporatism. I conversed with the author and she was unable to provide any credible reasoning with with to base her title. Kudos to Posel for actually communicating with me (others, like at washingtons blog, have failed to take that opportunity). If she changes the story, I will move this to group II. The first red flag is that Posel cites Turner Radio Network as a news source. The second red flag is that Posel states the opposite of what is said in her other source (the translated TEPCO release). The third red flag was her use of a photo showing smoke rising somewhere, sometime, but it is not attributed to any photographer (we have no idea what this photo means, as it just aggrandizes the false headline of her story.). Posel is presenting a dishonest portrayal of the information she sources from. TEPCO does not state that reactor 3 could be melting down, they just make statements about the steam. I now know that I cannot trust what is written by Posel, which also calls into question any material on their (her) web site (which I also recognize as a money machine feeding off of peoples’ irrational behavior). Don’t waste your time there. TEPCO Quietly Admits Reactor 3 Could Be Melting Down NOW
    • 2013/12/31: Here is an article from the ecologist that does appear to be based on a dishonest representation of the data in the translated TEPCO press releases (and inspired by the Posel article linked above). There are a couple red flags that lead me to place this in group III. (1) they use Turner Radio Network (a right wing conspiracy theorist web site) as a source of information. (2) they use a facebook post as a source of information. wow. We can rest assured that when anyone uses a facebook post as a source of information that their entire web site is in question. This is quite a low threshold for credibility. Fukushima meltdown? Mystery steam rising over Reactor 3 I am unimpressed by the ecologist as evidenced by this story and the page where they promote Suzuki’s recent talk at a university (also linked to on my page). I would read anything on the ecologist with a high degree of skepticism (the kind of skepticism one has for a spouse who has just been caught in an affair).

    Fear Based Profit

    These two blogs that copy each other are based on this for-profit web site that is imho using fear mongering to generate income. There is misinformation here, along with poorly documented graphics. do you know what level 4 means? what about level 3? they tell you what 1 and 5 are. From the site: “Do Not Panic, always check with other reliable sources.” and “Unreliable Site.”Follow the links. of course, they probably make money each time you click on them (this activist post/ukiahcommunityblog is a for-profit page that makes money from hype due to their fear mongering graphics; even though it sounds like a groovy site, with community in its name).

    1. This one is a copy of the next one. Fukushima: 28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation…
    2. 2013/10/28: This is the source for the prior one. Note the same name and the same exact text. This is common for these conspiracy theory blogs. They link to each other and use each other as references, lending false credibility to their content. 28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima
    3. 2013/10/28: Here is a breakdown for these 28 fallacies. This blog takes each account and discredits the above 2 blogs… More Fukushima Scaremongering Debunked
    4. Here is another breakdown for these 28 fallacies. This blog takes each account and discredits the above 2 blogs… Thanks Doug Lafarge for finding this. 28 fallacies about the Fukushima nuclear disaster’s effect on the US West Coast

    These two blogs are an example where people just copy their material from several sources. This makes it appear the material is credible, when it may not be. I noticed this with some climate change blogs, each one sourced to the other, making a circle. e.g. “I am person B and what I say is true because person A said it was true.” “I am person A and what I say is true because person B said it was true.”

    1. 2013/09/13: This one is a copy of the next one, written by Yoichi Shimatsu. Death of the Pacific. Fukushima Debris soon to hit American Shores
    2. Here is the source page for the above blog. The Death Of The Pacific Ocean: Fukushima Debris Soon To Hit American Shores
    3. Here is the source page for the above 2 blogs. The Death Of The Pacific Ocean: Fukushima Debris Soon To Hit American Shores Don’t forget to quickly skim the short disclaimer
    4. Here is the web site that hosts this material. Consider the other topics of highly important information that we can also learn about here. Rense When you are making your case with a person who is already critical of your position, do you want to send this critic to rense to review your sources?
    • 2013/10: Here is an updated blog post from activist post Michael Snyder. I have not completely reviewed this page, but see some inaccuracies. I would be cautious about using this as a source of information. Something Is Killing Life All Over The Pacific Ocean – Could It Be Fukushima? Actually, the more i read this blog post, the less I think I it is a reliable source of information. Move along. Move along. (Star Wars) Snyder’s claims about being interested in promoting awareness are not supported by this blog post.
    • 2013/10/26: Here is a page that has a video of a citizen scientist conducting a radiation survey without any training. We must be critical of any such results for a long list of reasons. Here is a short list: (1) he does not know what he is measuring (2) we do not know how he calibrated his device (3) he cannot tell us the source of radiation he is measuring, which is probably the salt in the sea water and (4) the level of radiation is miniscule and irrelevant. Fukushima radiation hits San Francisco of course, all we need to do is look at the linked resources on the page (to rense for example, or naturalnews) to recognize this page is most likely crapola.
    • Here is another blog created to profit from our fear of dangerous radiation. Do not use this as a source of information. Radiation Network
    • Here is another crappy blog that picked up content from other useless and fear mongering blogs and links to youtube videos. The map of modeled sea water makes its appearance again, with no attribution as to its meaning. pure hype. useless. Do not use this as a source of information. This 11 minute video shows us everything we need to know about Fukushima I know that if I see a link to ncnm.com I can now simply ignore it.
    • 2013/10: Here is another washington’s blog. We are familiar with their fake news and false information from my discussion about the tsunami model map that was used to spread fear about nuclear radiation. Do not use this as a source of information. Fukushima Is Here These people lining up on the beach, that project, was based on ignorance about radiation in the northeast Pacific.
    • Here is a forum hosted by UC Berkeley (online with anonymous comments, much like a radio call-in show) EPA to raise “safe” limits even though it has a .edu url, it is not a reliable source of information. there may be correct information, but it is difficult to tell if it is correct. more importantly, it is difficult to tell the significance. the disclaimer makes this claim. We should be wary of this information, especially when this disclaimer is so clear about it.
    • Here is a page that has a dishonest figure caption. The map shows a simulation of ocean currents, but the statement says it shows radiation in the ocean (which it does not, the difference between a model and a measurement. Alaskan Atomic Anxiety as Fukushima Radiation Arrives
    • 2013/11/08: Here is Global Research blog post from 11/08/13. GR is possibly one of the most polished fear hype engines alive today. If you need to look up anything about how HAARP is being used to trigger earthquakes, just search GR. This link here is like many other blogs, it is a carbon copy of another blog page. This page links their source to Washington’s Blog (one of the blogs that posted the tsunami map as a radiation map). When we go to the WB page, we find it links back to GR. Thus, they instantly created false credibility because they showed us their source, which sourced themselves as a source. Scientists Warn of Extreme Risk: Greatest Short-term Threat to Humanity is From Fukushima Fuel Pools Avoid GR like the plague if you want to use the best information available.
    • Here is a page that made me fall off my chair laughing (though radiation really is not a laughing matter). Look at the url to get your first taste at evaluating the credibility of this blog post. A second way to test the credibility of this post is the title. Does anyone really think we need to evacuate the entire west coast? Not only is that title fully unsupported by the source included in the blog post, but this is not an ABC news story. This blog post is fooling its readers to think this is from ABC news. ABC NEWS – West Coast May Need To Be Evacuated Due To Fukishima Radiation Also, if that all was not enough to get your jollies, look at the name of the author, “famous dave.” This is probably the funnest blog post to evaluate. If not, then it was the funnest to read. Update: they actually linked to an ABC newscast (which includes some poorly researched claims) Here. However, this blog post is still fooling people to think the content is solely from ABC news. I do not trust this website as a source, but do what you choose to do on your own accord.

    AND finally a little radiation inspired fun.

    7 thoughts on “Fukushima Dai-ichi Radiation”

    1. I just wanted to clarify that The National Report is actually satire kinda like The Onion. They were poking fun at Fukushima scaremongering when they posted their article about the ocean “boiling”

      Reply
    3. Pingback: Hoax Alert: Cascadia Buoy! | Jay Patton online
    4. Pingback: Radio Show Material: KHUM with Lyndsey Battle | Jay Patton online

    5. I hada friend show this map and complained about the epa being disbanded, and it looked odd… only measurement I know with CM is centimeters…. so i provided all this info (studies by environmentalists, government and safe limits) to him and as i look to pull up all the bullshit maps, yours pops up! with the website!
      thank you for doing that… I make me feel a lot better knowing I can guide him to a government site debunking an article for falsely using this image. I try to keep to reliable sources.
      now im trying to see who will actually go the the government site before getting all hissy about the map.

      Reply

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *