What's safe to eat? How can we know? | WHOI : Oceanus : Seafood Safety and Policy

The first trial sale of octopus caught off Fukushima began in June 2012, 15 months after the Dai-ichi nuclear plant explosion. (Yomiuri Shimbun via AP Images)

In Japan, a nation that eats prodigious amounts of seafood, one question sits high on the list of public concerns: Is seafood caught after the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe safe for human consumption?

In the wake of the disaster, coastal fisheries in Fukushima and all neighboring precincts were quickly closed. Within two weeks, the Japanese government began monitoring radioactivity in fish, shellfish, and edible seaweeds. More than a year later, not because of new scientific findings or any changes in offshore conditions, but in an attempt to further reassure consumers, the government lowered the acceptable limit for radiation in fish from 500 becquerels per kilogram—already among the strictest standards in the world—to 100 Bq.

Last fall, Ken Buesseler, a marine geochemist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, combed through a year’s worth of data released by the Japanese fisheries agency. His analysis, published Oct. 26, 2012, in the journal Science, showed that the “vast majority” of fish being caught off Fukushima and surrounding areas had radiation levels below the tightened safe-consumption limit. Among bottom-dwelling species, however, 40 percent came in over that limit. Most important, levels of radiation in the ocean and in seafood did not appear to be declining in the 12 months following the accident.

To Buesseler and others, this persistence is strong evidence of a continuing source of radiation leaking into the environment. Fish naturally lose cesium quite quickly, about 3 percent per day, if they are not re-exposed to some additional cesium source. At the same time, Buesseler acknowledged, the remaining concentrations of radionuclides in fish are generally quite low—lower than limits in force in the United States, and lower than the amount of radiation naturally present in seawater.

Still, public anxiety in Japan remains high. With the exception of a few unaffected species such as whelk and octopus, fisheries remain closed off Fukushima prefecture. And disturbing outliers—individual fish with exceedingly high levels of radiation—continue to turn up. At the Fukushima and the Ocean conference in Tokyo in November 2012, experts drawn from various fields examined the issues surrounding seafood safety. Their spirited conversation ranged well beyond the science...

more > WHOI : Oceanus : Seafood Safety and Policy

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

newpapers are down temporarily

sorry folks - the papers are temporarily down, hopefully back up soon! < #RCDaily #OcNuke #OcNukeDaily #OccupyNuclear

99 One-Liners Rebutting Denier Talking Points — With Links To The Full Climate Science | ThinkProgress

Progressives should know the disinformers’ most commonly used arguments — and how to answer them crisply. Those arguments have been repeated so many times by the fossil-fuel-funded disinformation campaign that almost everyone has heard them — and that means you’ll have to deal with them in almost any setting, from a public talk to a dinner party.

You should also know as much of the science behind those rebuttals as possible, and a great place to start is SkepticalScience.com.

BUT most of the time your best response is to give the pithiest response possible, and then refer people to a specific website  that has a more detailed scientific explanation with links to the original science. That’s because usually those you are talking to are rarely in a position to adjudicate scientific arguments. Indeed, they would probably tune out. Also, unless you know the science cold, you are as likely as not to make a misstatement.

Physicist John Cook has done us a great service by posting good one-line responses and then updating them as the science evolves and as people offer better ways of phrasing. Below I have reposted the top 99 with links to the science. You can find even more here. Everybody should know the first 20 or so...

more > 99 One-Liners Rebutting Denier Talking Points — With Links To The Full Climate Science | ThinkProgress

Nuclear vs. Solar: Corporate Profits and Public Risk - The Equation

Crowd headed for the sun

"There are lots of reasons to choose solar over nuclear.  Solar power does not draw water from reservoirs or rivers. Solar power does not have safety risks that go on for years without being corrected. No waste from solar plants can be used to make bombs.  But maybe I have already made up my mind. I have invested my own money to put solar panels on my own roof.  My risk, my power supply, my choice. 

"Where nuclear power proposals do not face a test of competition or even comparison with alternatives, lawmakers should require utility regulators to have power companies conduct a comprehensive integrated resource planning process where energy efficiency and renewables are on a level playing field with other supply options.

"If the owners of a nuclear power plant are willing to take a risk with their own money, maybe they don’t need to justify their choice. But if the money at risk is YOURS, and there is NO review, seems like the state government should get more involved in protecting the consumer."

Nuclear vs. Solar: Corporate Profits and Public Risk - The Equation

In the Sunshine State (Florida) and nearby states of North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, proposals for new nuclear power plants stand in stark contrast to lower risk, less expensive energy alternatives. Consumers in these states have already donated $6 Billion to the utilities’ nuclear ambitions. The charges that can be collected without the consumer seeing a benefit are estimated for the reactors: Summer 2 & 3, (South Carolina) $10.4 billion; Vogtle (Georgia) $14.5 – $18.2 billion; Levy (Florida), $15.1 to $21.6 billion, and Turkey Point (Florida) $12.8 to $18.7 billion.
Costs and Risks, On You

The long and uncertain process for permitting and building nuclear power plants creates costsand risks. The utilities that continue to pursue nuclear power permitting and construction all have protections from their state regulators thatthe risks and costs for nuclear plant development will be paid by consumers, without regard to progress or success of these efforts. Utility consumers are paying for these plants through rate increases before the plants begin producing any energy. A UCS-sponsored study of costs projected the Levy power plant could add $700 to residential electric customers’ annual electric bill by the year 2021, which might be when the plant begins to produce electricity. What the final cost will actually be, no one knows...

more > Nuclear vs. Solar: Corporate Profits and Public Risk - The Equation

The Equation - a blog on independent science practical solution
Union of Concerned Scientists

An Open Letter to Bank of America - PSR: Physicians for Social Responsibility

Join us in asking the Bank of America to phase out loans to the coal industry and fossil fuel-burning utilities, and greatly increase their loans to clean, safe, carbon-free and nuclear-free renewable energy sources. Banks contribute to climate change through their financed emissions -- the emissions induced by a bank’s loans to and investments in companies that emit greenhouse gases. Bank of America is one of the largest financiers of coal mining, mountaintop removal, and dirty coal-fired power plants. We’re working with a wide coalition of organizations to ask Bank of America to “clean up” their loan portfolio by phasing out those loans and investing instead in clean, safe, carbon-free and nuclear-free renewable energy sources. Add your name to our letter to Bank of America. I’ll be delivering it next week at their shareholder meeting in Charlotte, NC. I’d love to have your signature on it.

An Open Letter to Bank of America

We, the undersigned physicians, health professionals, and members of Physicians for Social Responsibility, urge the Bank of America to phase out its portfolio of loans to companies engaged in extracting, processing, or burning fossil fuels.  The carbon dioxide from those activities is the single biggest factor causing climate change and the associated severe health risks to the world’s population.

As the earth warms, the delicate balance of climate, weather events and life is being disrupted.  Consequences are already emerging that threaten human health and, ultimately, survival. 

• Heat waves contribute to heat stroke, which can lead to delirium, convulsions, coma, and death.  More than 70,000 people died due to the European heat wave of 2003.
• Drought is causing large-scale crop loss, driving up world food prices and worsening malnutrition and famine. 
• Wildfires increase dangerous particulate air pollution.
• High summer temperatures increase ground-level ozone, provoking asthma attacks and aggravating diseases like bronchitis and emphysema. Repeated exposure may cause asthma in previously healthy people and permanently scar lung tissue.
• Changes in climate are increasing the range of infectious diseases carried by insects, including malaria, West Nile virus, dengue and Lyme disease.
• Severe storms now threaten communities on a far more frequent basis than seen before.
• Rising sea levels will create millions of environmental refugees.

Bank of America, as a top financier of companies whose industries contribute disproportionately to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions – such industries such as coal mining, oil and gas production, and fossil fuel-based electric power generation –facilitates these climate-induced threats to health and survival. 

Yet as a top financier, you are also in a position to do great good.  We ask you to phase out your loans to fossil fuel industries and greatly increase your portfolio of loans to clean, safe, carbon-free and nuclear-free renewable energy sources.

Survey - An Open Letter to Bank of America - PSR: Physicians for Social Responsibility

Zuckerberg promoting dirty fuels? DISLIKE.

Zuckerberg promoting dirty fuels? DISLIKE.



@SierraClub
 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151432359047572&set=a.72328147571.77213.6204742571&type=1&theater

see also
what next: FWD.US: Stop running ads supporting fossil fuels | RAN