Support KPFA
Is our seafood raidoactive, or is it safe to eat? - November 29, 2013 at 1:00pm

Terra Verde, for November 29, 2013 - 1:00pm

Click to Play:

Download this clip (mp3, 5.13 megabytes)
Play this clip in your Computer's media player
Is our seafood raidoactive, or is it safe to eat?

It’s been two and a half years since a magnitude 9 earthquake and tsunami struck the coast of Japan, crippling the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The still damaged-plant continues to release radiation into the environment. In August, the power plant’s owners confirmed that the plant is releasing 300 tons of radioactive water into the ocean — every day. This is the largest single contribution of radionuclides into the marine environment ever observed. Naturally, it has people across the globe worried about the impact on fish, oceans and our health. South Korea has banned imports of seafood from the northeast coast of Japan. Here in the US, social media networks continue to buzz with people swearing off Pacific Ocean fish — especially after scientists announced that some tuna found off the coast of San Diego contains trace amounts of radio-isotopes from the Fukushima plant.

But do you really need to be worried? Tune into Terra Verde to hear our guests separate fact from fear-mongering. With us will be Nicholas Fisher, professor in the School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences at SUNY-Stonybrook, Ken Buesseler, a marine radiochemist and Senior Scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and Paul Johnson, the founder and owner of Monterey Fish Market here in Berkeley.

More from this show: About the Show | Archives of this Show | Playlists from this Show

Playlist for this Program:


This program is ignorant of

This program is ignorant of the differences between different radioactive isotopes as well as the difference between internal and external exposure.

Radioactivity accumulates over time. It concentrates in life forms. You cannot burn it away. It will be with us for the rest of our lives. The LESS you get, the better off you will be. There is no "healthy dose" of radioactive cesium, for example.

We have thousands of chemical toxins in our environment. But talking about mercury in the fish as something similar to radioactivity in fish is "muddying the waters." Both are dangerous but radioactivity is danger of a different form.

Comparing this kind of radiation ( ionizing ) with natural radiation ( non-ionizing ) is a bad idea.
They are very different things. We have some ability to deal with natural radiation. We haven't yet developed the ability to deal with the kind of damage caused by ionizing radiation.

I would very much like to

I would very much like to know the decision making process that led to this program airing. Though it is reasonable to consider that some of these people were doing what they thought of as a helpful thing, they succeeded in only undermining their credibility. Scientist should virtually always be interviewed by an educated layman to elicit responses that make sense. At the very least they further confuse the issues of exposed to ingested sources and seem to carefully ignore the longer term consequences of reducing radionuclides to nanosized particles carried by wind and water. The concern should be on ingested sources and testing should be focused on this not on people being exposed to radiation from outside their bodies. An even bigger problem with this production is its complex and convoluted concentration on false ideas about radiation common in the public that come across to me, as a scientifically educated person, as evasive. It is probably true that any one contamination event is only a small additional exposure to background radiation, which misses the main point that we have an unprecedented release of nuclear material that is not appropriately compared to changes in ingestible radionuclides. Public health, which should be the source for research and advisement of the population, has been basically shut down. No one is minding the switch. The FDA refusal to even support a testing program based on their assessment that the results would be negative is OUTRAGEOUS. But everyone on this panel has conflicts of interests that undermine their usefulness as guests. At least I can economize on my time int he future by taking Terraverde off my list of programs to listen to. More time communing with the hummingbirds would be in order.

This program is brought to

This program is brought to you be Nancy Pelosi and her friends @ Agenda 21.

The public will NEVER KNOW of

The public will NEVER KNOW of FUKUCHIMA radioactivity risk coming from “systemic based” information sources. It's not in status quo "political interest" to reveal truth that is damaging to status quo “economic interest”. It just does not happen. Even AFTER FUKUCHIMA, the nuclear industry and Abe are thinking of nuclear EXPANSION!

An honest individual, here and there, MIGHT reveal information damaging to his/her self-interest. But, “systems” (i.e., governments, corporations, groups, organizations) do not -- never have -- voluntarily revealed damaging self-interest.

So, the only way to offset this human predicament/trajedy is thru independent citizen-based, objective, valid, knowledgeable, AUDIT groups/studies/committees that gain access to the facts (if possible) and reveal objective and truthful independent unbiased results that benefit the population, not the entrenched INTEREST groups.

Our so-called “democracy” was set-up with the above in mind, but today -- as is known -- “Corporations” rule. The U.S. constitutional “Checks and Balances” control mechanism is now dysfunctional, ineffective, obsolete, unreliable, and no longer works.


Ps. Of the 103 domestic nuclear power plants, what is the average age? Where do they store nuke waste? Are they in safe locations? Are plans presently 100% in place for citizens when the next nuke plant dies? Should the "market" control our destiny? Or, should "we" control our destiny?

I agree completely. Thank you

I agree completely. Thank you Olly how refreshing.

Fact from Fiction? There is

Fact from Fiction? There is no safe exposure to radiation. Comparing Plutonium, Cesium, and Strontium to Banana's is ridiculous.

lets get something strait ,

lets get something strait , water and bananas and your so called background radiation has nothing to do with fukushima radiation, using earths natural radiation as a measuring stick is misleading . Using short half life isotopes as a example is deception because you should be talking about Plutonium , strontium , uranium , and the entire family tree of isotopes that half life is a billion years . You never mention the 300 tons admitted hemorrhaging into the pacific every day for almost a thousand days . You never mention Chernobyl was only a 30 percent meltdown and only is 1/3 the size of fukushima average reactors , or the 3 x 100% melted cores or that unit 3 and the missing fuel pools , you never mention the peer review study's showing the entire pacific ocean radiated in a 6 year German model of a 2 week dispersion .
you never mention Mox Fuel in unit 3 that is considered 2 million times worst than any reactor on earth and is missing and 100 percent melted and pouring into the pacific ocean . Yet you assert you have the final say on what is fact and fear mongering . here go read : Model simulations on the long-term dispersal of 137Cs released into the Pacific Ocean off Fukushima . 4200 peer review study's are locked away every day , you should apologize for this radio show

EXACTLY Dana. All excellent

EXACTLY Dana. All excellent points and something no one is talking about! UGH.

Ken Buesseler -Pro-nuclear

Ken Buesseler -Pro-nuclear shill par excellance

Listen Live:

Listen Live
     (64K stereo mp3)

KPFA 94.1 FM (24k mp3)

KPFB 89.3 FM (16k mp3)

iPhone: Public Radio App

Android: TuneIn Radio App

WebOS: Public Radio App

Click Here For Help Listening

KPFA Video Channel