Home | About | Donate

'Fukushima Fingerprint': Off US Shores, Highest-Yet Radiation Levels Found



The dialogue regarding Fukushima needs to expand beyond the issue of radioactivity. Many daughter products of fission are highly toxic from a chemical perspective. Somehow this point needs to be included in the discussion and, in particular, the scientific study of biological impacts. To overcome the suppression of related news, one might consider bookmarking enenews.com; it is an aggregator of relevant information.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


"One sample collected roughly 1,600 miles west of San Francisco revealed the highest radiation level detected to date off the West Coast, the researchers said in a post on the project's website..."

Although it's apparently not Kosher to connect the dots, the number of seals coming to Fisherman's Wharf is WAY down. Their numbers are faltering.

Anyone who understands the holistic nature of the webs of life realizes that the radiation levels, added to changes in sea salinity and temperature are directly killing off these amazing species and many others.

Crimes against life are ongoing.


Aren't you going to trash the Common Dreams staff writer for misspelling "isotropes"? No because you are opportunistic in your grammar attacks.


I think of the scene in the movie Cloud Atlas where the Presient says to the Tom Hanks character that the Earth has been slowly dying from the nuclear war that occurred some time previously. I thought then that it could easily be from uncontained nuclear power plants spewing radiation year, after year, after year.


From the article:

'Scientists from the WHOI and Buesseler's citizen-science project Our Radioactive Ocean discovered trace amounts of cesium-134, the "fingerprint" of Fukushima, in 110 new Pacific samples off U.S. shores in 2015 alone.

The isotrope is unique to Fukushima and has a relatively short two-year half life, which means "the only source of this cesium-134 in the Pacific today is from Fukushima," Buesseler said.'

Dr. Buessler surely knows that ALL seawater on the planet contains detectable levels of cesium-134. If none is detected, the obvious implication is that the sensitvity of the instrumentation needs improvement. But instead, Buessler comes to a more sensational, and erroneous, conclusion.


I hope everyone realizes how tiny a unit a Becquerel per cubic meter (the average measurement at the orange dots is). The activity of naturally occurring K40 in sea water is 12,000 Bq m-3. So while this is of scientific interest (Can it bioaccumulate to any measurable degree at such low levels? What are the trends of the levels in fish?), it is absolutely not a hazard to anyone on this side of the Pacific.


Once more you try and deflect from the truth.

Cesium 134 is a synthetic isotope. It does not occur in nature meaning any found in seawater man made.

When levels go up and reach record recorded levels then there has to be a man made source.

Can you please define what other sources are causing levels of Cesium 134 to climb?

Your tactics are exactly the same as those used by those denying there climate change where they claim "the worlds climate has always changed"

By the way these increased levels were predicted some time ago based upon the Fukishima incident.


Even the guy, Müller, who first made the "no safe threshold" claim knew before he gave his Nobel speech that there was solid experimental evidence that impeached the claim, yet he didn't mention that research. Look up the work of Calabrese at Amherst. He found Müller's communication on the subject. It was one of the (thankfully few) occasions in which ideology trumped evidence, and a scientist betrayed both his training and science itself.

You can find further, more current experimental evidence for low-dose benefits if you look in NIH's PubMed database. Look up "radiation hormesis".


according to my health care provider, she is seeing more folks including children with thyroid disease problems since Fukushima. How are we to know just what level is safe? Who decides?????????? It's all over folks.


Thanks for the link but reading it was too scary. There is just no way I can handle the overload of bad news there. Maybe someone else will have a better method to process all of what's there as perhaps you must have.


Dose Response. 2006; 4(3): 169–190. Published online 2006 Sep 27. doi: 10.2203/dose-response.06-102.LuckeyPMCID: PMC2477686Radiation Hormesis: The Good, the Bad, and the UglyT.D. LuckeyAuthor information ► Copyright and License information ►This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Go to:AbstractThree
aspects of hormesis with low doses of ionizing radiation are presented:
the good, the bad, and the ugly. The good is acceptance by France,
Japan, and China of the thousands of studies showing stimulation and/or
benefit, with no harm, from low dose irradiation. This includes
thousands of people who live in good health with high background
radiation. The bad is the nonacceptance of radiation hormesis by the U.
S. and most other governments; their linear no threshold (LNT) concept
promulgates fear of all radiation and produces laws which have no basis
in mammalian physiology. The LNT concept leads to poor health,
unreasonable medicine and oppressed industries. The ugly is decades of
deception by medical and radiation committees which refuse to consider
valid evidence of radiation hormesis in cancer, other diseases, and
health. Specific examples are provided for the good, the bad, and the
ugly in radiation hormesis.

Dose Response. 2010; 8(2): 172–191. Published online 2010 Jan 18. doi: 10.2203/dose-response.09-037.VaisermanPMCID: PMC2889502Radiation Hormesis: Historical Perspective and Implications for Low-Dose Cancer Risk AssessmentAlexander M. VaisermanAuthor information ► Copyright and License information ►This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Go to:AbstractCurrent
guidelines for limiting exposure of humans to ionizing radiation are
based on the linear-no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis for radiation
carcinogenesis under which cancer risk increases linearly as the
radiation dose increases. With the LNT model even a very small dose
could cause cancer and the model is used in establishing guidelines for
limiting radiation exposure of humans. A slope change at low doses and
dose rates is implemented using an empirical dose and dose rate
effectiveness factor (DDREF). This imposes usually unacknowledged
nonlinearity but not a threshold in the dose-response curve for cancer
induction. In contrast, with the hormetic model, low doses of radiation
reduce the cancer incidence while it is elevated after high doses. Based
on a review of epidemiological and other data for exposure to low
radiation doses and dose rates, it was found that the LNT model fails
badly. Cancer risk after ordinarily encountered radiation exposure
(medical X-rays, natural background radiation, etc.) is much lower than
projections based on the LNT model and is often less than the risk for
spontaneous cancer (a hormetic response). Understanding the mechanistic
basis for hormetic responses will provide new insights about both risks
and benefits from low-dose radiation exposure.

Dose Response. 2013 Nov; 11(4): 495–512. Published online 2013 May 24. doi: 10.2203/dose-response.13-005.DossPMCID: PMC3834742Linear No-Threshold Model VS. Radiation HormesisMohan DossAuthor information ► Copyright and License information ►This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Go to:AbstractThe
atomic bomb survivor cancer mortality data have been used in the past
to justify the use of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model for estimating
the carcinogenic effects of low dose radiation. An analysis of the
recently updated atomic bomb survivor cancer mortality dose-response
data shows that the data no longer support the LNT model but are
consistent with a radiation hormesis model when a correction is applied
for a likely bias in the baseline cancer mortality rate. If the validity
of the phenomenon of radiation hormesis is confirmed in prospective
human pilot studies, and is applied to the wider population, it could
result in a considerable reduction in cancers. The idea of using
radiation hormesis to prevent cancers was proposed more than three
decades ago, but was never investigated in humans to determine its
validity because of the dominance of the LNT model and the consequent
carcinogenic concerns regarding low dose radiation. Since cancer
continues to be a major health problem and the age-adjusted cancer
mortality rates have declined by only ∼10% in the past 45 years, it may
be prudent to investigate radiation hormesis as an alternative approach
to reduce cancers. Prompt action is urged.

Dose Response. 2009; 7(1): 1–51. Published online 2009 Jan 19. doi: 10.2203/dose-response.08-023.HoffmannPMCID: PMC2664639A Perspective on the Scientific, Philosophical, and Policy Dimensions of HormesisGeorge R. HoffmannAuthor information ► Copyright and License information ►This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Go to:AbstractThe
hormesis concept has broad implications for biology and the biomedical
sciences. This perspective on hormesis concentrates on toxicology and
toxicological risk assessment and secondarily explores observations from
other fields. It considers the varied manifestations of hormesis in the
context of a broad family of biological stress responses. Evidence for
hormesis is reviewed, and the hormesis model is contrasted with more
widely accepted dose-response models in toxicology: a linear
nonthreshold (LNT) model for mutagenesis and carcinogenesis, and a
threshold model for most other toxicologic effects. Scientific,
philosophical, and political objections to the hormesis concept are
explored, and complications in the hormesis concept are analyzed. The
review concludes with a perspective on the current state of hormesis and
challenges that the hormesis model poses for risk assessment.Keywords: hormesis, dose-response, toxicology risk assessment, threshold, high-risk groups, biphasic curveGo to:DOSE-RESPONSE MODELS FOR EFFECTS AT LOW DOSESThree
models have dominated thinking about effects of exposures to low doses
of toxicants and radiation: a threshold model, a linear model with no
threshold (LNT), and a hormetic model. The threshold model is widely
considered to be the standard in toxicology, except that LNT prevails in
mutagenesis and carcinogenesis. Hormesis, which entails a biphasic
dose-response, is a challenge to the threshold and LNT models (Calabrese and Baldwin 2001a, 2003a, 2003b; Calabrese and Blain 2005).

Dose Response. 2013; 11(2): 281–292. Published online 2012 Jul 2. doi: 10.2203/dose-response.12-010.MortazaviPMCID: PMC3682203Increased
Radioresistance to Lethal Doses of Gamma Rays in Mice and Rats after
Exposure to Microwave Radiation Emitted by a GSM Mobile Phone SimulatorSMJ Mortazavi,1,2 MA Mosleh-Shirazi,3 AR Tavassoli,4 M Taheri,5 AR Mehdizadeh,6 SAS Namazi,7 A Jamali,7 R Ghalandari,7 S Bonyadi,7 M Haghani,2 and M Shafie7Author information ► Copyright and License information ►This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Go to:AbstractThe
aim of this study was to investigate the effect of pre-irradiation with
microwaves on the induction of radioadaptive response. In the 1st
phase of the study, 110 male mice were divided into 8 groups. The
animals in these groups were exposed/sham-exposed to microwave, low dose
rate gamma or both for 5 days. On day six, the animals were exposed to a
lethal dose (LD). In the 2nd phase, 30 male rats were divided into 2 groups of 15 animals. The 1st group received microwave exposure. The 2nd
group (controls) received the same LD but there was no treatment before
the LD. On day 5, all animals were whole-body irradiated with the LD.
Statistically significant differences between the survival rate of the
mice only exposed to lethal dose of gamma radiation before irradiation
with a lethal dose of gamma radiation with those of the animals
pre-exposed to either microwave (p=0.02), low dose rate gamma (p=0.001)
or both of these physical adapting doses (p=0.003) were observed.
Likewise, a statistically significant difference between survival rates
of the rats in control and test groups was observed. Altogether, these
experiments showed that exposure to microwave radiation may induce a
significant survival adaptive response.

Dose Response. 2007; 5(3): 230–255. Published online 2006 Dec 21. doi: 10.2203/dose-response.06-002.ScottPMCID: PMC2477699Sparsely
Ionizing Diagnostic and Natural Background Radiations are Likely
Preventing Cancer and Other Genomic-Instability-Associated DiseasesBobby R. Scotta and Jennifer Di PalmaaAuthor information ► Copyright and License information ►This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Go to:AbstractRoutine
diagnostic X-rays (e.g., chest X-rays, mammograms, computed tomography
scans) and routine diagnostic nuclear medicine procedures using sparsely
ionizing radiation forms (e.g., beta and gamma radiations) stimulate
the removal of precancerous neo-plastically transformed and other
genomically unstable cells from the body (medical radiation hormesis).
The indicated radiation hormesis arises because radiation doses above an
individual-specific stochastic threshold activate a system of
cooperative protective processes that include high-fidelity DNA
repair/apoptosis (presumed p53 related), an auxiliary apoptosis process
(PAM process) that is presumed p53-independent, and stimulated immunity.
These forms of induced protection are called adapted protection because
they are associated with the radiation adaptive response. Diagnostic
X-ray sources, other sources of sparsely ionizing radiation used in
nuclear medicine diagnostic procedures, as well as radioisotope-labeled
immunoglobulins could be used in conjunction with apopto-sis-sensitizing
agents (e.g., the natural phenolic compound resveratrol) in curing
existing cancer via low-dose fractionated or low-dose, low-dose-rate
therapy (therapeutic radiation hormesis). Evidence is provided to
support the existence of both therapeutic (curing existing cancer) and
medical (cancer prevention) radiation hormesis. Evidence is also
provided demonstrating that exposure to environmental sparsely ionizing
radiations, such as gamma rays, protect from cancer occurrence and the
occurrence of other diseases via inducing adapted protection
(environmental radiation hormesis).

Aging (Albany NY). 2011 Nov; 3(11): 1051–1062. Published online 2011 Dec 12. PMCID: PMC3249451Hormesis does not make sense except in the light of TOR-driven agingMikhail V. BlagosklonnyAuthor information ► Article notes ► Copyright and License information ►This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Go to:AbstractWeak
stresses (including weak oxidative stress, cytostatic agents, heat
shock, hypoxia, calorie restriction) may extend lifespan. Known as
hormesis, this is the most controversial notion in gerontology. For one,
it is believed that aging is caused by accumulation of molecular
damage. If so, hormetic stresses (by causing damage) must shorten
lifespan. To solve the paradox, it was suggested that, by activating
repair, hormetic stresses eventually decrease damage. Similarly, Baron
Munchausen escaped from a swamp by pulling himself up by his own hair.
Instead, I discuss that aging is not caused by accumulation of molecular
damage. Although molecular damage accumulates, organisms do not live
long enough to age from this accumulation. Instead, aging is driven by
overactivated signal-transduction pathways including the TOR (Target of
Rapamycin) pathway. A diverse group of hormetic conditions can be
divided into two groups. “Hormesis A” inhibits the TOR pathway.
“Hormesis B” increases aging-tolerance, defined as the ability to
survive catastrophic complications of aging. Hormesis A includes calorie
restriction, resveratrol, rapamycin, p53-inducing agents and, in part,
physical exercise, heat shock and hypoxia. Hormesis B includes ischemic
preconditioning and, in part, physical exercise, heat shock, hypoxia and
medical interventions.

J Cell Commun Signal. 2014 Dec; 8(4): 341–352. Published online 2014 Oct 17. doi: 10.1007/s12079-014-0250-xPMCID: PMC4390804Radiation-hormesis phenotypes, the related mechanisms and
implications for disease prevention and therapyBobby R. ScottAuthor information ► Article notes ► Copyright and License information ►This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Go to:AbstractHumans are continuously exposed to ionizing radiation throughout life
from natural sources that include cosmic, solar, and terrestrial. Much harsher
natural radiation and chemical environments existed during our planet’s early years.
Mammals survived the harsher environments via evolutionarily-conserved gifts a
continuously evolving system of stress-induced natural protective measures (i.e.,
activated natural protection [ANP]). The current protective system is differentially
activated by stochastic (i.e., variable) low-radiation-dose thresholds and when
optimally activated in mammals includes antioxidants, DNA damage repair, p53-related
apoptosis of severely-damaged cells, reactive-oxygen-species
(ROS)/reactive-nitrogen-species (RNS)- and cytokine-regulated auxiliary apoptosis
that selectively removes aberrant cells (e.g., precancerous cells), suppression of
disease promoting inflammation, and immunity against cancer cells. The
intercellular-signaling-based protective system is regulated at least in part via
epigenetic reprogramming of adaptive-response genes. When the system is optimally
activated, it protects against cancer and some other diseases, thereby leading to
hormetic phenotypes (e.g., reduced disease incidence to below the baseline level;
reduced pain from inflammation-related problems). Here, some expressed radiation
hormesis phenotypes and related mechanisms are discussed along with their
implications for disease prevention and therapy.


You might have congratulated the restraint instead of attacking this more positive behaviour you/we ought to be wanting to encourage.


On the contrary, that would be too much of more of the same, thinking that life can be quantified and compensated by payment of the fiction that is money.


They are climbing as would be expected as they disperse from the much higher initial concentrations in the water off of Fukushima. But the amounts are absolutely miniscule - especially compared to the natural isotopes in seawater that emit exactly the same kind, but thousands of times more radiation. The additional radiation cancer risk is comparable or less than, say, the tiny, but measurable (with your nose) respirable particle emissions of frying back-bacon from the kitchen of your carnivore neighbor on a Sunday morning.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Immaterial to the rebuttal to MR ianneta who implied by omission that Cesium 134 naturally occurring.

It is a synthetic isotope and the levels of it in seawater climb as a result of Fukishima just as the article suggests.

Parallel studies by Canadian scientists have concluded the same.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.