True, but with one teoretical distinction: cosmic radiation is external, ingested heavy isotopes represent intrinsic radiation, and those two things are not comparable.DEFCONWarningSystem wrote:There has been an isotope or two from Fukushima. But basically, nothing. You're getting more radiation from the sun than you are from Fukushima.
As for the impact of Fukushima on Americans I wouldn't claim to be able to conclude at all. It depends on if the pacific is big enough to thin it out to insignificancy.
We have gained some unwanted knowledge here in Europe, when it comes to this. Two different sources.
The core rained down partially over northern scandinavia. Running around with a geiger counter in 2017 will produce no spectacular result. However, examination of sheep reveal that the heavy isotopes, such as cesium and plutonium, are still present, but harder to measure (alpha and beta). They haven't been washed away, but remain in the earth and are extracted by Lichen, which is eaten by sheep and then by man, resulting in health risks.
2) Rule Britannia
Spillwater from nuclear power plants in UK has followed the gulf-streem northeast and heavy isotopes are showing up in shellfish along the Norwegian coastline .
Alpha versus gamma
The problem with such isotopes is that when ingested, they are misinterpreted by the organism as calcium and is therefoe built into the bone tissue (it doesn't remain in the lungs or guts). There it lies for three years (the turnover-time for bone) and bombards the bone marrow and meningia with heavy (alpha) radiation, representing a bigger health risk than a matematical equivalent of external gamma.
In southern and southwestern norway, some rare cancer-forms are no longer rare. As one german neurologist put it; I have seen more of these tumors in 1 year in Norway, than in 10 years is Berlin.
Am I saying that this will happen in Alaska or Washington state? Probably not. But I would not be surprised if the top-of-the-foodchain seafood of the north pacific over time would accumulate in the same way our shellfish, salmon and sheep have done.
Then again, the pacific is enormously bigger than the north sea. And I don't think a drugged up cow from an industrialized plant is any healthier than a Tuna-liver with a slight glow (joke). Most of what we eat is slowly becomeing dangerous.
An old norse text on Ragnarok (Apocalypse) reads: "In the end, all the food was poisoned and the only thing Odin would eat was his own pigs."
The notion that accumulation in a Tuna would set off a dirty-bomb-alarm is, however, hillarious. (reference to the article) If you belive that, you have seriously misunderstood physics.
As for the question about nuclear energy money lobbying for blackouts, that simply isnt true. The reason these problems have not been adressed publicly in Scandinavia is beacuse noone is lobbying for them.
The MSM picture is dominated by the church of climatology because there is so much money in it. There is no money in saying that norwegian lobsters are dangerous and that a norwegian salmon is 1 kg of poison (which they are, actually, don't eat them if offered!). There is no one to tax for it and no product to be sold.
The green stuff has its own logic. As simple as that.