Alaska Wont Test Fukushima Radiation In Fish ☢

The Plutonium Content in Bananas is soon so great that we may soon run our Nuclear Plants on Bananas

Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins is a 24-year-old legislator representing Sitka in the Alaska House of Representatives, and in his newsletter we can read about his "expert" opinions on the Fukushima Radiation Fallout hitting Alaska. Talking to Dr. Ken Buesseler another leading expert on the matter.

Alaska wont test Radiation levels in fish because as our 24 year old "expert" Jonathan so reassuringly puts it..

"the solution to (Fukushima Radiation) pollution is in fact dilution."
Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins said.

"To be clear: there may well be more radiation in a banana (and who doesn't love bananas?) than off our Alaska coast." Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins said.

Quotes and newsletter can be read here
www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20140122/yeah-about-fukushima-radiation

There may well be reason for Jonathan to think that "Alaska can run Nuclear Ractors on Bananas". Because "Nuclear Experts" in the media say so!

The science behind the newsletter and from Dr. Ken Buesseler of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution can also be read in the following posts

☢ [IMAGE] Fukushima 100.000 Times More Cesium-137 Than Chernobyl or Nuclear Weapons Testing ☢

Please also take note that Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins was not even born when the Chernobyl Disaster happened, the 100.000 times more Cesium 137 along with Uranium and MOX Fuel Plutonium that the Fukushima Disaster have been emitting and dumping into the Ocean and Atmosphere have never been seen in the history off mankind.

So far 314.700 Tons of Radioactive Reactor Water have been flowing into the Pacific Ocean and it continues to do so and have been doing so from the start 1049 days ago at an amount of 400 tons daily.

Ocean is dead because of Fukushima

The simulations, scientific studies shown to the public have NOT taken this into the calculations to date! There have now been 314.700 Tons more radiation flowing into the Pacific Ocean and that number is missing in all studies and simulations.

☢ [IMAGE] The Ocean Is Dead Because of Fukushima ☢

☢ How Many Bananas Do You Need To Eat To Get a Metallic Taste In Your Mouth? ☢

FAO Major Fishing Areas Show High Radiation Zones - Fukushima Contaminated FAO Zones 61,67,71,77,87

☢ Food label Will Tell You If You Are Eating Fuku Radiation - FAO Major Fishing Areas ☢

☢ What Is PLUTOnium? - Short Video ☢

This is how Plutonium looks

The following is a short but informative video about Plutonium. It explains the alchemy behind it and the process in nuclear plants.

And also gives us an understanding about how toxic this element Plutonium PU-242 with it's atomic number 94 is to humans and all living creatures on this planet.




The following is a letter found at https://www.ccnr.org/max_plute_aecb.html
(CCNR is a not-for-profit organization, federally incorporated in 1978. It is dedicated to education and research on all issues related to nuclear energy, whether civilian or military -- including non-nuclear alternatives -- especially those pertaining to Canada.)

How much plutonium does it take
to overdose a person?
Letter from the Atomic Energy Control Board
(followed by comments from CCNR)

---

re: Maximum Permissible Intake
of Plutonium by Inhalation

September 30 1999

Ms. Kristen Ostling
National Coordinator
Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout
1200-1 Nicholas Street
Ottawa Ontario
K1N 7B7

Subject:

Quantity of Plutonium that an Atomic Radiation Worker and the Public may Inhale to Reach their Respective Limits

Dear Ms. Ostling:
The Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) does not set maximum permissible quantities of radionuclides for workers or the public. Regulatory protection criteria are expressed in terms of effective dose limits.
In this context, we understand your question to mean: "What is the quantity of plutonium oxide, if inhaled, would give rise to an effective dose of 50 mSv [ millisieverts ] to a worker or 5 mSv to a member of the public?"
As the result of an intake, these doses will be received over 50 years by a worker and over a period ending at age 70 by a member of the public. These calculations have been made for insoluble (in lung fluid) plutonium oxide of 1 micrometer size. These assumptions are very conservative (restrictive); in other words the worst case scenario has been assumed.

workers:	1.4 micrograms for 50 mSv committed effective dose (over 50 years after intake)
public:	0.1 microgram for 5 mSv committed effective dose (up to age 70)

If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (613) 996-5637.
Yours truly,


M. P. Measures, Ph.D.
Director
Radiation and Environmental Protection Division

---

Comments from CCNR

Foreword

Plutonium is a highly toxic material. Attempts to deny or to obscure this fact are, we feel, irresponsible.
Some spokespersons for AECL and for the Government of Canada have suggested that there is no danger involved in MOX transport worthy of anyone's serious consideration.

We feel compelled to point out that, although the probability of a severe accident that would release plutonium to the atmosphere is admittedly small, the potential health and environmental consequences of such an accident can be serious due to the extraordinary toxicity of plutonium when inhaled.

It is for this reason alone that the United States of America has made it illegal to transport plutonium by air in US territory. Such a prohibition does not exist for any other radioactive material.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has admitted, in documents submitted to Transport Canada, that in four out of eight categories of serious road transportation accidents, the MOX containers would be completely destroyed and a plume of plutonium dust would be spread downwind to a distance of about 80 kilometers.

Transport Canada has stated -- not once, but several times, in its response to public commentaries about AECL's plans for MOX transport by road -- that transporting MOX by air is much more dangerous than doing it by road because of the health dangers of inhaling plutonium dust following an accident.

Industry and government spokespersons have insisted that120 grams of plutonium is too small an amount to raise legitimate health and environmental concerns. They have made the irrelevant observation that 120 grams of plutonium is about the size of two A-A batteries.
Such remarks are manipulative in nature; they do not help people to weigh the risk. The important quantity is not the VOLUME or MASS of plutonium, but its TOXICITY. Based on data supplied by AECB (see letter above) we can address the toxicity question as follows:

In principle, using AECB's regulatory limits,
how many ''civilians'' can be overdosed
by 100 grams of plutonium?

0.1 micrograms	can overdose	one civilian
multiply by one million
0.1 grams	can overdose	one million civilians
multiply by ten
1 gram	can overdose	ten million civilians
multiply by one hundred
100 grams	can overdose	one billion civilians
600 grams	can overdose	six billion civilians

If there is a serious accident involving
120 grams of plutonium (in the form of MOX),
how many civilian overdoses could, in principle, result?

if NONE of the plute is safely contained	there is a potential for	one billion two hundred million civilian overdoses
if 90 percent of it is safely contained	there is a potential for	one hundred and twenty million civilian overdoses
if 99.9 percent of it is safely contained	there is a potential for	one hundred and twenty thousand civilian overdoses
if 99.999 percent of it is safely contained	there is a potential for	one thousand two hundred civilian overdoses

In principle, using AECB's regulatory limits,
how many ''atomic radiation workers'' can be
overdosed by 140 grams of plutonium?

1.4 micrograms	can overdose	one atomic worker
1.4 grams	can overdose	one million workers
14 grams	can overdose	ten million workers
140 grams	can overdose	one hundred million workers
560 grams	can overdose	four hundred million workers

If there is a serious accident involving
600 grams of plutonium (in the form of MOX),
how many worker overdoses could, in principle, result?

if NONE of the plute is safely contained	there is a potential for	four hundred twenty-five million worker overdoses
if 90 percent of it is safely contained	there is a potential for	forty-two and a half million worker overdoses
if 99.9 percent of it is safely contained	there is a potential for	forty-two and a half thousand worker overdoses
if 99.999 percent of it is safely contained	there is a potential for	four hundred and twenty-five worker overdoses

If there is a serious accident involving
600 grams of plutonium (in the form of MOX),
how many civilian overdoses could, in principle, result?

if NONE of the plute is safely contained	there is a potential for	six billion civilian overdoses
if 90 percent of it is safely contained	there is a potential for	six hundred million civilian overdoses
if 99.9 percent of it is safely contained	there is a potential for	six hundred thousand civilian overdoses
if 99.999 percent of it is safely contained	there is a potential for	six thousand civilian overdoses

Afterword

The probability of a serious accident involving MOX transport is small, but the consequences can be severe. They can also be very long-lived: since plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years, plutonium contamination can be permanent. It is a betrayal of public trust to pretend that these risks do not exist.
Unlike most shipments of radioactive materials, plutonium shipments are attractive targets for criminals or terrorists, because plutonium is the primary nuclear explosive material from which atomic bombs can be made.
Any attempted hijacking can only increase the risks of unintended releases of plutonium to the atmosphere.

---