Thread: WHY IS'NT MSM REPORTING ON THE escalating DANGERS of Radiation, UPDATED

Canada Busted Covering Up Spikes In Fukushima Radiation

January 6th, 2014
Falsely Stated That There Were No Unusual Radiation Levels
(GlobalResearch) - December 5th, 2013 – The governments of Japan, America and Canada have covered up the severity of the Fukushima crisisever since it started in March 2011.
They’ve cut way back on radiation monitoring after the Fukushima meltdown, underplayed the amount of radiation pumped out by Fukushima, and raised acceptable radiation levels … rather than fixing anything.
For example, Straight.com reports:

A study by several researchers, including Health Canada [the department of the government of Canada with responsibility for national public health] monitoring specialist Ian Hoffman, reveals a sharp spike in radiation over southwest B.C. on March 20, 2011.
***
In 2011, investigative journalist Alex Roslin reported in the Georgia Straight that a Health Canada monitoring station in Sidney had detected radioactive iodine-131 levels up to 300 times normal background levels.
In 2011, Health Canada was declaring on its website that the quantities of radiation reaching Canada did not pose any health risk to Canadians.
“The very slight increases in radiation across the country have been smaller than the normal day-to-day fluctuations from background radiation,” Health Canada said at the time.
Roslin maintained in his article that Health Canada’s own data contradicted that assertion. Below, you can see more of what the researchers stated in the PowerPoint presentation about the radiation plume.

Here’s what Roslin wrote in 2011:

After Japan’s Fukushima catastrophe, Canadian government officials reassured jittery Canadians that the radioactive plume billowing from the destroyed nuclear reactors posed zero health risks in this country.
In fact, there was reason to worry. Health Canada detected large spikes in radioactive material from Fukushima in Canadian air in March and April at monitoring stations across the country.
***
For 22 days, a Health Canada monitoring station in Sidney detected iodine-131 levels in the air that were up to 300 times above the normal background levels. Radioactive iodine levels shot up as high as nearly 1,000 times background levels in the air at Resolute Bay, Nunavut.
Meanwhile, government officials claimed there was nothing to worry about. “The quantities of radioactive materials reaching Canada as a result of the Japanese nuclear incident are very small and do not pose any health risk to Canadians,” Health Canada says on its website. “The very slight increases in radiation across the country have been smaller than the normal day-to-day fluctuations from background radiation.”
In fact, Health Canada’s own data shows this isn’t true. The iodine-131 level in the air in Sidney peaked at 3.6 millibecquerels per cubic metre on March 20. That’s more than 300 times higher than the background level, which is 0.01 or fewer millibecquerels per cubic metre.
“There have been massive radiation spikes in Canada because of Fukushima,” said Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.
“The authorities don’t want people to have an understanding of this. The government of Canada tends to pooh-pooh the dangers of nuclear power because it is a promoter of nuclear energy and uranium sales.”
Edwards has advised the federal auditor-general’s office and the Ontario government on nuclear-power issues and is a math professor at Montreal’s Vanier College.

Similarly, the Nelson Daily reported in 2012:

The Green Party of Canada said despite public concern over fallout from the nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Health Canada failed to report higher than normal radioactive iodine levels in rainwater.
***
“We were worried that this important information would not reach the public and unfortunately, it looks as if we were right,” said Green Leader Elizabeth May, MP for Saanich Gulf Islands in a written press release.
It has now been revealed that data were not released from a Calgary Health Canada monitoring station detecting levels of radioactive iodine in rainwater well above the Canadian guideline for drinking water.
This isotope was known to be released by the nuclear accident and also showed up in tests in Vancouver, Winnipeg and Ottawa. Lower levels of contamination resulted in a don’t-drink-rainwater advisory in Virginia.
“Serious questions are arising about how Health Canada tests for radiation, and why it has failed to properly alert the public,” said May.
***
“In effect, Health Canada has not allowed Canadians to take any preventative steps to reduce our exposure to this radiation.”

Source: Global Research

Canadian Medical Association Journal Blasts Japanese Government: "Culture of Coverup" Exposing Japanese Citizens to "Unconscionable" Radiation Risk

The official journal of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA), "Canadian Medical Association Journal" is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. On their website, there is an article dated December 21, 2011 which severely criticizes the Japanese government's response (or lack thereof) to the nuclear disaster which has just been declared "over" by the current Noda administration.

Written by Lauren Vogel of CMAJ quoting medical experts, the article states:

• The Japanese government has been "lying through their teeth" ever since the March 11 accident;
  
• The Japanese government hasn't disclosed enough information for the citizens to make informed decision, with “extreme lack of transparent, timely and comprehensive communication”;
  
• The response to the Fukushima nuclear disaster by the Japanese government is far worse than the response to the Chernobyl accident by the Soviet Union government;
  
• The annual radiation exposure limit for the general public of 20 millisieverts is "unconscionable", and there has been no government "in recent decades that's been willing to accept such a high level of radiation-related risk for its population"

The article is literally trashing the Japanese government. Quite a contrast to certain international organizations who praise the Japanese government at every opportunity. But in fact, the second point above is in violation of one of the ICRP's recommendations which says the residents should be made aware and understand the radiation risk fully before giving consent to the government policy.

Further, the article quotes Dr. Kozo Tatara of the Japan Public Health Association, who revealed a difficult position his government was in at a meeting in Washington DC in November, by saying:

“It’s very difficult to persuade people that the level [of exposure set by the government] is okay”

Still, one expert interviewed for the article seems to think it's still not too late to evacuate:

"the single most important public health measure to minimize the health harm over the longterm is much wider evacuation"

Quite a contrast to the Japan Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that issued an official statement back on March 19, declaring "It is safe if you are 30 kilometers away from the plant, the information from the national government is accurate, there is no negative health effect on embryos, fetuses, babies and small children if the cumulative radiation is 100 millisieverts and below".

From Canadian Medial Association Journal (CMAJ) (12/21/2011; emphasis added):
Public health fallout from Japanese quake
Lauren Vogel, CMAJ, with files from Barbara Sibbald, CMAJ
December 21, 2011

A “culture of coverup” and inadequate cleanup efforts have combined to leave Japanese people exposed to “unconscionable” health risks nine months after last year’s meltdown of nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Dai-ichi power plant, health experts say.

Although the Japanese government has declared the plant virtually stable, some experts are calling for evacuation of people from a wider area, which they say is contaminated with radioactive fallout.

They’re also calling for the Japanese government to reinstate internationally-approved radiation exposure limits for members of the public and are slagging government officials for “extreme lack of transparent, timely and comprehensive communication.”

But temperatures inside the Fukushima power station's three melted cores have achieved a “cold shutdown condition,” while the release of radioactive materials is “under control,” according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/coldshutdown.html). That means government may soon allow some of the more than 100 000 evacuees from the area around the plant to return to their homes. They were evacuated from the region after it was struck with an 8.9 magnitude earthquake and a tsunami last March 11.

Although the potential for further explosions with substantial releases of radioactivity into the atmosphere is certainly reduced, the plant is still badly damaged and leaking radiation, says Tilman Ruff, chair of the Medical Association for Prevention of Nuclear War, who visited the Fukushima prefecture in August. “There are major issues of contamination on the site. Aftershocks have been continuing and are expected to continue for many months, and some of those are quite large, potentially causing further damage to structures that are already unstable and weakened. And we know that there’s about 120 000 tons of highly contaminated water in the base of the plant, and there’s been significant and ongoing leakage into the ocean.”

The full extent of contamination across the country is even less clear, says Ira Hefland, a member of the board of directors for Physicians for Social Responsibility. “We still don't know exactly what radiation doses people were exposed to [in the immediate aftermath of the disaster] or what ongoing doses people are being exposed to. Most of the information we're getting at this point is a series of contradictory statements where the government assures the people that everything's okay and private citizens doing their own radiation monitoring come up with higher readings than the government says they should be finding.”

Japanese officials in Tokyo have documented elevated levels of cesium — a radioactive material with a half-life of 30 years that can cause leukemia and other cancers — more than 200 kilometres away from the plant, equal to the levels in the 20 kilometre exclusion zone, says Robert Gould, another member of the board of directors for Physicians for Social Responsibility.

International authorities have urged Japan to expand the exclusion zone around the plant to 80 kilometres but the government has instead opted to “define the problem out of existence” by raising the permissible level of radiation exposure for members of the public to 20 millisieverts per year, considerably higher than the international standard of one millisievert per year, Gould adds.

This “arbitrary increase” in the maximum permissible dose of radiation is an “unconscionable” failure of government, contends Ruff. “Subject a class of 30 children to 20 millisieverts of radiation for five years and you're talking an increased risk of cancer to the order of about 1 in 30, which is completely unacceptable. I'm not aware of any other government in recent decades that's been willing to accept such a high level of radiation-related risk for its population.”

Following the 1986 nuclear disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine, “clear targets were set so that anybody anticipated to receive more than five millisieverts in a year were evacuated, no question,” Ruff explains. In areas with levels between one and five millisieverts, measures were taken to mitigate the risk of ingesting radioactive materials, including bans on local food consumption, and residents were offered the option of relocating. Exposures below one millisievert were still considered worth monitoring.

In comparison, the Japanese government has implemented a campaign to encourage the public to buy produce from the Fukushima area, Ruff added. “That response [in Chernobyl] 25 years ago in that much less technically sophisticated, much less open or democratic context, was, from a public health point of view, much more responsible than what’s being done in modern Japan this year.”

Were Japan to impose similar strictures, officials would have to evacuate some 1800 square kilometres and impose restrictions on food produced in another 11 100 square kilometres, according to estimates of the contamination presented by Dr. Kozo Tatara for the Japan Public Health Association at the American Public Health Association's 139th annual meeting and exposition in November in Washington, District of Columbia.

“It’s very difficult to persuade people that the level [of exposure set by the government] is okay,” Tatara told delegates to the meeting. He declined requests for an interview.

The Japanese government is essentially contending that the higher dose is “not dangerous,” explains Hefland. “However, since the accident, it’s become clear the Japanese government was lying through its teeth, doing everything it possible could to minimize public concern, even when that meant denying the public information needed to make informed decisions, and probably still is.”

“It's now clear they knew within a day or so there had been a meltdown at the plant, yet they didn't disclose that for weeks, and only with great prodding from the outside,” Hefland adds. “And at the same moment he was assuring people there was no public health disaster, the Prime Minister now concedes that he thought Tokyo would have to be evacuated but was doing nothing to bring that about.”

Ruff similarly charges that the government has mismanaged the file and provided the public with misinformation. As an example, he cites early reports that stable iodine had been distributed to children and had worked effectively, when, “in fact, iodine wasn't given to anyone.”

Public distrust is at a level that communities have taken cleanup and monitoring efforts into their own hands as the government response to the crisis has been “woefully inadequate” and officials have been slow to respond to public reports of radioactive hotspots, Gould says. “That’s led to the cleanup of some affected areas, but there are also reports of people scattering contaminated soil willy-nilly in forests and areas surrounding those towns.”

“In some places, you can see mounds of contaminated soil that have just been aggregated under blue tarps,” he adds.

Even with government assistance, there are limits to the decontamination that can be achieved, explains Hefland. “What do you do with the stuff? Do you scrape entire topsoil? How far down you have to go? And if you wash down the buildings, what do you do with the waste water?”

As well, Ruff argues the government must examine the provision of compensation for voluntary evacuation from areas outside of the exclusion zone where there are high levels of radioactive contamination. Without such compensation, many families have no option but to stay, he says. “At this point, the single most important public health measure to minimize the health harm over the longterm is much wider evacuation.”

The Japanese government did not respond to inquiries.

http://ex-skf.blogspot.de/search/lab...%20Association

How Is Fukushima’s Radioactive Fallout Affecting Marine Life?
By David Pacchioli :: Originally published online May 2, 2013


The Fukushima nuclear disaster delivered an unprecedented amount of radioactivity into the sea over a relatively brief time. How did that pulse of cesium and other radioisotopes make its way through the marine food chain? Scott Fowler, who helped pioneer marine radioecology for more than 30 years at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Marine Environment Laboratories, offered a primer on the subject at the Fukushima and the Ocean Conference in Tokyo in November 2012.

The food chain starts with marine phytoplankton—microscopic plants that account for as much photosynthesis as plants on land. These organisms take up radioactive contaminants from the seawater that surrounds them. As the phytoplankton are eaten by larger zooplankton, small fish, and larger animals up the food chain, some of the contaminants end up in fecal pellets or other detrital particles that settle to the seafloor. These particles accumulate in sediments, and some radioisotopes contained within them may be remobilized back into the overlying waters through microbial and chemical processes.

How much radioactivity gets into marine life depends on a host of factors: How long the organisms are exposed to radioactivity is certainly important, but so too are the sizes and species of the organisms, the radioisotopes involved, the temperature and salinity of the water, how much oxygen is in it, and many other factors such as the life stage of the organisms.

In all this, Fowler said, it’s important to remember the omnipresence of natural background radiation. Polonium-210 and potassium-40 are naturally occurring radioisotopes in the ocean, for example. Potassium-40 is the most abundant radioisotope in the ocean, but polonium-210 accumulates more readily in marine organisms.

“Polonium is responsible for the majority of the radiation dose that fish and other marine organisms receive,” he said.
In an experiment in the early 1980s, Fowler demonstrated vast differences in how much plutonium was absorbed from seawater by marine life across a spectrum of taxonomic groups. Phytoplankton accumulated roughly 10 times as much plutonium as microzooplankton, which took up 100 times more than clams. Octopi and crabs took up about half as much plutonium as clams, but about 100 times more than bottom-dwelling fish.

Another cross-species comparison showed that organisms took up different amounts of radioactivity depending on which particular radioisotopes were out there, he said.

Radioisotopes are also transferred to marine organisms from contaminated sediments—once again in ways that display a complex range of factors, Fowler noted. In one experiment measuring uptake of americium, worms exposed to contaminated sediments took up significantly more of the radioisotope than clams did. But both worms and clams took up much more of the radioisotopes from Pacific sediments, which contain relatively high amounts of silica minerals, than they did from Atlantic sediments, which contain more carbon minerals.
Food is another pathway into marine organisms and “may be in some cases the most important factor in uptake,” Fowler said. Consumed radioisotopes are assimilated internally through the gut, potentially a far more efficient route than if they are absorbed externally from the environment. Marine invertebrates, such as bottom-dwelling starfish and sea urchins, are particularly proficient at absorbing a wide range of ingested radioisotopes, he said, but fortunately, they lose that incorporated radioactivity over time, via excretion.
On an expedition in June 2011, biologists collected samples of phytoplankton, zooplankton (bottom), and fish, including the tiny hatchetfish (top), to learn if radioisotopes from Fukushima were accumulating in marine life. (Photos by Ken Kostel, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)

From plankton to tuna
Fowler’s longtime colleague, Nicholas Fisher, zeroed in on the isotopes that have had the most impact from Fukushima. Fisher, a marine biogeochemist at Stony Brook University, has spent 35 years studying the fate of metals and radioisotopes in marine organisms, including radioisotopes associated with nuclear waste. He and members of his lab participated in the research cruise led by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution marine geochemist Ken Buesseler off the coast of Japan in June 2011.

Analyzing plankton and fish sampled on the cruise, they consistently found cesium-134 and cesium-137. Not surprisingly, they found no iodine-131, the isotope which along with cesium had been released in highest quantity from the damaged Dai-ichi nuclear power plant. Iodine-131, with its half-life of a mere eight days, was undetectable after a couple of months, Fisher explained.

Cesium, of course, is a different story. The ocean and its denizens continue to bear traces of cesium-137 that date from the atmospheric weapons testing during the Cold War era of the 1960s. Cesium-134, while much shorter-lived, will persist for a number of years.

The chemical properties of radioactive cesium are similar to those of non-radioactive cesium and naturally occurring potassium and sodium, which are abundant in seawater. So all these end up in the same tissues, particularly muscle, of fish and other marine organisms. But potassium and sodium are much less abundant in fresh water, so cesium uptake is much higher in freshwater organisms than in sea life.

Fish also excrete cesium fairly efficiently, losing a few percent per day. So if fish are no longer exposed to new contamination sources, the levels in their tissue should decrease fairly quickly.

Of particular concern for top-level consumers is the potential that these radioisotopes will be concentrated as they make their way up the food chain—what ecologists call biomagnification. Fortunately, cesium shows only modest biomagnification in marine food chains—much less than mercury, a toxic metal, or many other harmful organic compounds such the insecticide DDT and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), Fisher said.

On the 2011 cruise, he and his team measured cesium in everything they sampled. “These were primarily zooplankton and some fish,” he reported. As expected, concentrations were higher in organisms sampled closer to shore. Radioactive silver (110mAg) was also detected in all zooplankton samples. In all cases, however, the amounts of cesium and silver isotopes were much lower than those of naturally occurring potassium-40 in the same samples.

“The radioactivity of the fish we caught and analyzed would not pose problems for human consumption,” he said. Which is not, he noted, the same thing as saying that all marine organisms caught in the region are perfectly safe to eat.

Persistently higher-than-normal levels
What’s puzzling to Fisher, Buesseler, and many other scientists is the persistence of these low but significant levels of radioactivity in the ocean. Jota Kanda, an oceanographer at the Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, has extensively studied coastal waters off Fukushima and calculated the amount of cesium still present in coastal waters shallower than 200 meters (660 feet) and in sediments on the seafloor. By his reckoning, what remains is less than three percent of the total discharge, with the rest long since flushed out to the open ocean.

Yet levels of the cesium radioisotopes are still being measured at several tens to hundreds of becquerels per cubic meter in this area, Kanda noted, considerably higher than the levels prior to the Fukushima disaster. More importantly, levels measured in coastal sediments and in some species of fish are higher than those in the surrounding water.

As Kanda sees it, there are three sources responsible for this stubborn presence. One is river runoff—the fallout washed by rainfall into nearby rivers that drain to the sea. He also suggested that a small amount of contaminated water from basement compartments in the reaction unit housing is continuing to leak from the plant itself. But the biggest culprit—the only plausible explanation for the steady levels of radioactive cesium being measured in fish tissue—is continuous input through a food source. And that, he said, points to sediments.

Kanda has estimated that a total of 95 terabecquerels of cesium (1012 becquerels) is present in coastal sediments. The question, he maintained, is how it got there. It could have drifted down to the seafloor in the fecal pellets of plankton that consumed it at the surface—and in fact, plankton in shallow waters sometimes showed elevated levels of cesium. It could also be arriving with organic bits and pieces carried along by river water. It could have adhered to clay particles that came in contact with contaminated water; such radioactive cesium is tightly bound to clay particles and may not be easily transferred to marine life.
Sediment is complex stuff, he explained. Viewed up close, a single grain of what looks like sand is likely a mélange of mineral, organic matter, and pore water—the liquid trapped in the tiny gaps between particles. How contaminants are taken into these agglomerations is not well understood. Echoing Scott Fowler, Kanda noted that the composition and properties of sediments can vary dramatically.

Solving the mystery of the ongoing radioactivity will require a thorough analysis of the seafloor off Fukushima’s coast, he stressed. “Local communities are concerned. They want to know ‘When can we resume fishing?’ We scientists will have to answer this question.”

The key may be how long cesium stays put and the pathways for its uptake into the food chain. Given the 30-year half-life of cesium-137, the sediments could be a possible source of contamination in the food chain for decades to come.
Yours,
Pano
PS:
There are graphics that help you understand better the radioactivity in the ocean issues at the original article here:
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/...ng-marine-life

http://panokroko.wordpress.com/2014/...ndustrial-pol/

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY AGREED IN WRITING TO CONCEAL FUKUSHIMA RADIATION INFO FROM PUBLIC; SIGNED CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS WITH JAPAN GOVERNMENT TO RESTRICT INFO ON DANGERS AND HEALTH EFFECTS

Tuesday, 07 January 2014 15:17

*** BREAKING NEWS *** January 7, 2014 -- (TRN http://www.TurnerRadioNetwork.com ) -- The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been caught agreeing in writing to conceal information from the world about the extent of danger, damage and health effects at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant disaster in Japan. Turner Radio Network has obtained official copies of the agreements signed by the IAEA and the Fukui Prefectural Government as well as between the IAEA and Fukushima Medical University. We have the agreements, now YOU have them too!


In an astonishing development in the ongoing disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan, TRN has obtained official copies of agreements between the International Atomic Energy Agency and official entities in Japan, wherein the parties agree to conceal information from the public about the degree of damage, danger(s) and health effects on humans of the largest nuclear disaster in human history.

The first such agreement is signed on behalf of the Fukui Prefectural Government by Mr. Hiroyuki. Aratake, Director-General, Living and Environment Department. It is counter-signed on behalf of the IAEA by Mr. Denis Flory, Deputy Director General, Head of the Department of Nuclear Safety and Security. This document lays out the reason for its existence and the scope of cooperation between the IAEA and Japan. Specifically, the document states:

2. Scope of Cooperation
The Parties have identified the following areas and activities in which cooperation may be pursued:

· Research and study on radiation monitoring including application of environmental mapping technology by using unmanned aerial vehicles and the IAEA’s assistance in the use of radiation monitoring data to develop maps to be made available to the public;

· Research and study on off-site decontamination including the IAEA’s assistance in analyses of results of environmental monitoring and exploration of exposure pathways in order to reduce or avoid exposure; and

· Research and study on the management of radioactive waste including IAEA’s assistance in the study on management methods of low level radioactive waste from the above-referenced decontamination activities.

The above-referenced cooperation is designed to complement existing Japanese activities and to provide immediate assistance and support which will be of direct benefit to those living in Fukushima Prefecture.

While the item above sounds perfectly reasonable, Part 8 of the agreement seems to take a complete U-turn to conceal information from the public. Specifically, Part 8 of the agreement reads as follows:

8. Dissemination of Information
The Parties will support the widest possible dissemination of unclassified information provided or exchanged under these Practical Arrangements and, as appropriate and if circumstances so require, any subsequent separate arrangements including agreements referred to in Paragraph 5, subject to the need to protect proprietary
information. The Parties will ensure the confidentiality of information classified by the other Party as restricted or confidential. (Emphasis added)


According to the Tokyo Shimbun newspaper if either the prefectures or IAEA decide to classify information because “they contribute to worsening of the residents’ anxiety,” there is a possibility that such information as the accident information, as well as radiation measurement data and thyroid cancer information may not be publicized.

In short, if the IAEA doesn't want Japan telling something to the public, the IAEA can simply declare that information "restricted" and vice-versa!

Both the Fukui Prefectural Government and the IAEA are paid for - in one form or another - by TAX dollars; these entities exist to serve the public. How do they justify agreeing in writing to conceal information from the very public who makes their existence possible? Download the PDF of the Prefectural Goverment / IAEA agreement HERE

MEDICAL SCHOOL AGREES TO SECRECY TOO

In a separate and perhaps even more outrageous step, Mr. Daud Mohamad, Deputy Director General,Head of the Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications of the IAEA signed another agreement, this one with Mr. Shinichi Kikuchi, President of the Fukushima Medical University located at 1 Hikariga-oka, Fukushima City, Fukushima Prefecture 960-1295, Japan, wherein the two agree to cooperate as follows:

2. Scope of Cooperation
The Parties have identified the following areas and activities in which cooperation may be pursued:

· Health management survey: IAEA will assist the University in implementing the Fukushima Health Management Survey project;

· Capacity building and research: the Parties will collaborate in capacity building and research on human health programmes, including radiation emergency medicine;

· Enhancement of public awareness: the IAEA will endeavour to organize conferences, seminars and workshops, in cooperation with the University, with the aim of enhancing public awareness of radiological effects on human health and addressing the issue of “radiation fear” and post-traumatic stress disorders in the Fukushima population; and

· Exchange of expert support and information: the Parties may exchange expert support, information data and materials in carrying out the aforementioned collaborative activities.

As well-intentioned and reasonable as all that sounds, Part 8 of the agreement takes a dramatic turn to secrecy. Specifically, it states:

8. Dissemination of Information
The Parties will support the widest possible dissemination of unclassified information provided or exchanged under these Practical Arrangements and, as appropriate and if circumstances so require, any subsequent separate arrangement including agreements referred to in Paragraph 5, subject to the need to protect proprietary
information. The Parties will ensure the confidentiality of information classified by the other Party as restricted or confidential. (Emphasis added)

The Fukushima Medical University is a public school, created by the Prefectural Government. It is therefore funded by TAX dollars and accountable to the public. How can the University, which teaches young people to be Doctors and is allegedly concerned about public health, agree to conceal from the public (which pays for the school's existence) the health effects of radiation? Download the PDF of the Fukushima Medical University / IAEA agreement HERE

Given the evidence above, how can any rational person believe the public is being kept properly informed about the degree of damage and dangers emanating from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster? When governments and inter-governmental agencies from the United Nations, like the IAEA, conspire in writing to conceal information from the public, how can anyone trust these public servants?

The public has a right to know the threat to safety that exists from the Fukushima disaster. Since the effects of that disaster are affecting the Pacific ocean, and all the nations which border it, the public from those nations also have a right to know. It is long past time the public start demanding answers from elected public servants and getting the truth.

http://www.turnerradionetwork.com/news/180-mjt

Yep it is all about cover up and all about greed and to heck with the safety of the American people.....these are sad and dangerous times we live in IMO.

Health Officials: ‘No Concern’ Over 500% Increase In Radiation Levels On California Beach

Mikael Thalen| Story Leak
Health officials in California are attempting to brush off public concern after a viral Youtube video showed a large increase in radiation levels on a Coastside beach last week.

The video, which has garnered nearly half a million views, shows radiation levels over five times above the normal background level, prompting fears over the ongoing Fukushima disaster.
Following public outcry, a state investigation by health officials found similar levels while collecting ground samples several days later. According to County Environmental Health Director Dean Peterson, the public should not be concerned.

“It’s not something that we feel is an immediate public health concern,” Peterson told the Review. “We’re not even close to the point of saying that any of this is from Fukushima.”

According to “Dave,” the video’s author, radiation detected two inches off the beach surface several days prior produced levels even higher, nearly 13 times above normal.

Unconvinced of any link to Fukushima, Peterson pointed to items such as “red-painted disposable eating utensils” as a more likely cause of the heightened radiation levels.

“I honestly think the end result of this is that it’s just higher levels of background radiation,” Peterson said.
A group from GeigerCounter.com claims to have analyzed and found elevated levels of Radium 226 and Thorium 232 in the sand, two naturally occurring radioactive substances reportedly not associated with Fukushima.
According to Dave, after two years of measuring levels on the beach, the increase appeared almost overnight. Given estimates by physics experts that point to a massive radiation plume reaching the west coast by early 2014, some see the timing as more than coincidence.

Countless other issues plaguing the West Coast in recent months, such as the ongoing “melting sea star” epidemic, have raised increasing questions over the government’s handling of the disaster, or lack thereof.
Recent comments made by former MSNBC host Chenk Uygur have only fueled the public’s speculation over Fukushima’s severity. Attempting to speak out early on, Uygur was advised by the network not to warn viewers “because the official government position is that it’s safe.”

Unfortunately, initial concerns regarding Japan were validated after 71 U.S. sailors came forward last month, stricken with Leukemia, tumors and thyroid cancer after helping with initial Fukushima relief operations.
Just last week, the Department of Health and Human Services quietly ordered 14 million doses of potassium iodide, used to protect the thyroid gland during radiological disasters. Attempting to investigate the matter, DHHS officials hung up on Storyleak’s Anthony Gucciardi after questions regarding the incident produced conflicting answers.

As new mysterious plumes of steam continue to rise from reactor 3, Fukushima’s future remains increasingly uncertain.

Source: storyleak.com
Image: midnightwatcher.wordpress.com

http://www.naturalcuresnotmedicine.c...nia-beach.html

Unconvinced of any link to Fukushima, Peterson pointed to items such as “red-painted disposable eating utensils” as a more likely cause of the heightened radiation levels.

What a load of crap...you would think they would come up with something better than that for the cover up.....they really think we are idiots out here.

Study shows Fukushima nuclear pollution becoming more concentrated as it approaches U.S. West Coast — Plume crosses ocean in a nearly straight line toward N. America — Appears to stay together with little dispersion (MODEL)

Published: August 20th, 2013 at 9:43 am ET By ENENews

Title: An ensemble estimation of impact times and strength of Fukushima nuclear pollution to the east coast of China and the west coast of America
Source: Science China Earth Sciences; Volume 56, Issue 8, pp 1447-1451
Authors: GuiJun Han, Wei Li, HongLi Fu, XueFeng Zhang, XiDong Wang, XinRong Wu, LianXin Zhang
Date: August 2013

[...] On March 30, 2011, the Japan Central News Agency reported the monitored radioactive pollutions that were 4000 times higher than the standard level. Whether or not these nuclear pollutants will be transported to the Pacific-neighboring countries through oceanic circulations becomes a world-wide concern. [...]
[...] The time scale of the nuclear pollutants reaching the west coast of America is 3.2 years if it is estimated using the surface drifting buoys and 3.9 years if it is estimated using the nuclear pollutant particulate tracers. [...]

The half life of cesium-137 is so long that it produces more damage to human. Figure 4 gives the examples of the distribution of the impact strength of Cesium-137 at year 1.5 (panel (a)), year 3.5 (panel (b)), and year 4 (panel (c)). [...] It is worth noting that due to the current near the shore cannot be well reconstructed by the global ocean reanalysis, some nuclear pollutant particulate tracers may come to rest in near shore area, which may result in additional uncertainty in the estimation of the impact strength. [...]
[...] Since the major transport mechanism of nuclear pollutants for the west coast of America is the Kuroshio-extension currents, after four years, the impact strength of Cesium-137 in the west coast area of America is as high as 4%.

View the study online here (UPDATE: Free via http://femalefaust.blogspot.com)

Study shows Fukushima nuclear pollution becoming more concentrated as it approaches U.S. West Coast — Plume crosses ocean in a nearly straight line toward N. America — Appears to stay together with little dispersion

.... and that is why there are all the dead spots in the ocean, it is staying together and killing everything in its path.