The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Fukushima’s Canadian Implications – Prof. J Cullen report Jan. 2018

Screenshot from 2018-01-31 15:41:08

The Agenda with Steve Paikin

Published on 30 Jan 2018

Seven years ago, a 9.0 magnitude earthquake followed by a massive tsunami led to three nuclear reactor meltdowns and a series of explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan. More than 90 per cent of the resulting radiation went into the Pacific Ocean. Years later, that radiation slowly made its way to Canadian shores. Steve Paikin welcomes the chemical oceanographer tracking the disaster’s ocean contamination to learn the effects of the radiation in Canada and his take on the more serious issues off the coast of Japan.


January 31, 2018 - Posted by | Uncategorized



    Xenon 133 detected in pacific northwest 100,000 times normal immediately after Fukushima.

    I have read Cullen’s posts on Daily Kos. Some of his posts are biased and poo poo anti-nuclear activists as biased. The comments were full of pro-nuclear propaganda, for a long time.

    He does a fair enough job, in describing Fukushima’s current state, in this video.
    I have always felt the Cullen is pro-nuclear, based on his beliefs that nuclear power can mitigate climate change.

    I am a trained medical toxicologist-practitioner, with years of clinical experience. I am also certified, in Health Physics. I have never felt that chemists, or nuclear physicists, understand the super-genotoxic and chemical/radiological ramifications, of bioccumulation of radionuclides, in living creatures.
    I also feel that there was at least a partial fuel fire at fukushima, based on Marco Kaltofen’s renderings of house filter and car filter samples, of cesium 137 in Tokyo and Yokohama, of 1300 bq/kg and 700 bq/kg, respectively.  

    Comment by Tim | January 31, 2018 | Reply

    • Thanks for your comment Tim, he is a qualified oceanographer specialising in radiation pollution (one of the few). He has to work within the IAEA/ICRP recommendations on health and dose issues. His report on Fukushima in this piece was fair but still cautious. Most important is the readings from the Canadian side of the ocean that seem realistic to me and reports from serious activists on the west coast of Canada lead me to believe the Bq/m3 in sea water is likely true. However, testing on migrating fish is not well funded and sparce because of this. Tim Mosseau said that Jay is limited to the funding available to him and his team and that is a government/charity funding issue imo.. Dana Durnford is an idiot with a small following and should not be relied on imo.. Regards Shaun aka arclight2011

      Comment by arclight2011part2 | January 31, 2018 | Reply

      • I love Dun Renard’s web page. Love Christinas and Shauns tweets, and articles. I am not so much of a fan of Dana. I feel he is a sensationalist. I feel he should have, at least taken samples, on his grand expeditions. I have partcipated in anti-nuclear events, for many years. Not a poser.
        I have followed Fukushima, since it occured. It has reinervated my anti-nuclear sentiments.
        There were reports, of significant amounts of plutonium, found in liver and brain tissue of dead polar bears, walruses, and seals, by wildlife specialists, in Alaska, in 2012.
        It could only have come from Fukushima. I tried to find the artices later. They were scrubbed. Maybe someone saved them.
        There were citizen scientists, who used scintillators and good geigers to triangulate, significant amounts of beta-emmiters on beaches in Northern California, in 2012 and 2013.
        The fact that Cullen is associated with the IAEA, lowers his credibility, in my estimation.
        The fact, that there is not more research and data, as Shaun pointed out, is very frustrating. Chalk-that-up to the power of the nuclear-security-state, apparatus. It is like a global, that seems to cooperate among the nuclear powers.
        Cherry picking species, areas, and radionuclides, does not lend credibility to his research in my estimation.

        Comment by Tim | January 31, 2018

      • Thank you for your kind words and support Tim..

        Comment by arclight2011part2 | January 31, 2018

  2. I also do not agree with Jay Cullen conclusions. Since day one he has always minimized the possible effects of the radionuclides dumped into the Pacific ocean on the the marine food chain.

    Actually there has been much too few scientific studies done on the fission produced radionuclides effects on living organisms, especially marine organisms. Such study failing to be financed by the Establishment. We certainly should ask ourselves why.

    And the very few funded by the Establishment, done by Buesseler and Cullen, are not credible.

    Comment by dunrenard | January 31, 2018 | Reply

  3. Thank you so much for your blog fukushima 311 watchdogs and tweets Dun Renard. I pray your duaghter is doing well. I chant for her, my friends, and relatives in Japan, daily.

    Comment by Tim | January 31, 2018 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: