Sunday, October 12, 2014

Fukushima Radiation vs Ebola Outbreak

The contrast between news coming out on the Fukushima nuclear meltdown and the ebola outbreak could not be more stark.  The mainstream media is completely saturated with news of the ebola virus outbreak.  The Obama Administration's refusal to restrict air travel from Africa is already becoming an election issue in America.  This is as it should be, because ebola is a very scary disease.  It is overwhelming west-central Africa and kills about 70% of its victims in short order.  Now Europe and America are experiencing their first cases of ebola.

On the other hand, radiation from the Fukushima nuclear power plant meltdown is already in the U.S.  It's also been revealed that mixed oxide fuel rods were in use at Fukushima and we can count deadly plutonium among the radioactive isotopes released.  The Vancouver Sun reported that seaweed samples taken off British Columbia had tested at 4x safe limits for radiation.  The New York Times reports "low levels" of radiation in U.S. milk samples.  There has also been massive mortality among fish on the West Coast, including sardines, starfish, salmon, and other sea life.  Mainstream media won't speculate on radiation, though it's interesting that radiation from the Fukushima 3/11 event arrived on the West Coast in March 2014, about the time these anomalies in the coastal ecosystem became present.  And about 80,000 gallons of contaminated water from Fukushima continues to pour into the Pacific each day to bioaccumulate in the food chain.

Yet the average member of 50 million U.S. and B.C. residents who live on the west coast, remains blissfully unaware of the potential magnitude of the Fukushima disaster, though I bet practically all are concerned about ebola.  Did you know a study published in the International Journal of Health Services concluded that there have been approximately 14,000 deaths (mostly children) linked to radiation from Fukushima reaching the U.S.?  So far, one guy has died of ebola.  Ah well, who needs information?  What they're telling you about ebola might not be true anyway.


Anonymous said...

I agree with 99% of what you say and add that the media tends to jump from one sensational event to another, as such things become ""old news" and in the case of Fukushima not wanting to publish much that makes nuclear power look bad.

However, the study you mention by Joe Mangano/Janette Sherman showing 14,000 California deaths due to Fukushima radiation has been challenged by the Goddard Journal, alleging the data was misread, etc. Goddard seems on the mark on some other radiation issues.

WARR Lord said...

Fair point, but I think Mangano/Sherman were unfairly attacked for their work, which was peer reviewed prior to publication. They actually addressed the possible confounds in the Discussion section of their report. Yet the reality remains that a statistically significant increase in mortality occurred across the U.S. following the projected arrival of fallout from the 3/11 Fukushima disaster and a similar spike in mortality occurred after the Chernobyl incident. Research geeks can find the Mangano/Sherman report here: