Fukushima Nuclear Radiation in Grocery Store Seafood

by Michael Snyder

A Canadian high school student named Bronwyn Delacruz never imagined that her school science project would make headlines all over the world. But that is precisely what has happened. Using a $600 Geiger counter purchased by her father, Delacruz measured seafood bought at local grocery stores for radioactive contamination. What she discovered was absolutely stunning. Much of the seafood, particularly the products that were made in China, tested very high for radiation. So is this being caused by nuclear radiation from Fukushima? Is the seafood that we are eating going to give us cancer and other diseases? The American people deserve the truth, but as you will see below, the U.S. and Canadian governments are not even testing imported seafood for radiation. To say that this is deeply troubling would be a massive understatement.

In fact, what prompted Bronwyn Delacruz to conduct her science project was the fact that the Canadian government stopped testing imported seafood for radiation in 2012

Alberta high-school student Bronwyn Delacruz loves sushi, but became concerned last summer after learning how little food inspection actually takes place on some of its key ingredients.

The Grade 10 student from Grande Prairie said she was shocked to discover that, in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)stopped testing imported foods for radiation in 2012.

And what should be a major red flag for authorities is the fact that the seafood with the highest radiation is coming from China

Armed with a $600 Geiger counter bought by her dad, Delacruz studied a variety of seafoods – particularly seaweeds – as part of an award-winning science project that she will take to a national fair next month.

“Some of the kelp that I found was higher than what the International Atomic Energy Agency sets as radioactive contamination, which is 1,450 counts over a 10-minute period,” she said. “Some of my samples came up as 1,700 or 1,800.”

Delacruz said the samples that “lit up” the most were products from China that she bought in local grocery stores.

It is inexcusable that the Canadian government is not testing this seafood. It isn’t as if they don’t know that it is radioactive. Back in 2012, the Vancouver Sun reported that cesium-137 was being found in a very high percentage of the fish that Japan was selling to Canada…

• 73 percent of the mackerel
• 91 percent of the halibut
• 92 percent of the sardines
• 93 percent of the tuna and eel
• 94 percent of the cod and anchovies
• 100 percent of the carp, seaweed, shark and monkfish

So why was radiation testing for seafood shut down in Canada in 2012?

Someone out there needs to answer some very hard questions.

Meanwhile, PBS reporter Miles O’Brien has pointed out the extreme negligence of the U.S. government when it comes to testing seafood for Fukushima radiation. The following comes from a recent EcoWatch article

O’Brien also introduces us to scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute who have been testing waters around the reactors—as well as around the Pacific Rim—to confirm the levels of Fukushima fallout, especially of cesium.

These scientists are dedicated and competent. But they are also being forced to do this investigation on their own, raising small amounts of money from independent sources. They were, explains lead scientist Ken Buesseler, turned down for even minimal federal support by five agencies key to our radiation protection. Thus, despite a deep and widespread demand for this information, no federal agency is conducting comprehensive, on-the-ground analyses of how much Fukushima radiation has made its way into our air and oceans.

In fact, very soon after Fukushima began to blow, President Obama assured the world that radiation coming to the U.S. would be minuscule and harmless. He had no scientific proofthat this would be the case. And as O’Brien’s eight-minute piece shows all too clearly, the “see no evil, pay no damages” ethos is at work here. The government is doing no monitoring of radiation levels in fish, and information on contamination of the ocean is almost entirely generated by underfunded researchers like Buesseler.

A video news report in which O’Brien discusses these issues is posted below…

It is the job of the authorities to keep us safe, and the Fukushima nuclear disaster was the worst nuclear disaster in human history.

So why aren’t they doing testing?

Why aren’t they checking to make sure that this radiation is not getting into our food chain?

The Japanese are doing testing off the coast of Japan, and one fish that was recently caught off the coast of the Fukushima prefecture was discovered to have 124 times the safe level of radioactive cesium.

So why are all the authorities in North America just assuming that the fish are going to be perfectly fine on this side of the Pacific?

One test that was conducted in California discovered that 15 out of 15 Bluefin tuna were contaminated with radiation from Fukushima.

So how can the authorities say “don’t worry, just eat the seafood”?

Everyone agrees that a plume of radioactive water has been moving from Fukushima toward the west coast of the United States.

According to researchers at the University of South Wales, that plume is going to hit our shores at some point during 2014

The first radioactive ocean plume released by the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster will finally be reaching the shores of the United States some time in 2014, according to a new study from the University of New South Wales — a full three or so years after the date of the disaster.

The following graphic comes from that study…

And multiple independent tests have already confirmed that levels of nuclear radiation are being detected on California beaches that are more than 10 times the normal level.

Clearly something is happening.

So why are the U.S. and Canadian governments willingly looking the other way?

Local Chef Takes North Pacific Seafood Off Menu

KEYT News

SANTA BARBARA, Calif. –
A Santa Barbara chef is taking extreme measures to keep his customers safe from what said is dangerous seafood.

Robert Perez has been a chef for more than three decades, but it was the nuclear disaster in Japan that changed the way he cooks.

In March 2011, a tsunami triggered by an earthquake rocked the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant, causing radioactive materials to leak.

Even though scientists have said that the radiation in the ocean is now low, Perez isn’t buying it.

“The way things are heading, we just feel strongly that it is not safe, and I’m not going to consume the fish and I’m definitely not going to provide it to my guests. I just can’t do that with a clear conscience,” said Perez.


The menu at Seagrass changed slightly two years ago when the restaurant stopped using Japanese seafood. Around a year ago, Hawaiian fish was taken off the menu. Now, all seafood from the San Diego border to Alaska is gone.
The change has forced Perez to get his fish from Mexico, the Atlantic or even farther.

“Alpine, New Zealand salmon,” said Perez as he unwrapped a piece of fish. “It comes from glacier water.”

He believes he’s the only chef in the area making such strict choices on his food, because no one really talks about it.
“They go, ‘Fuku-what?’ It’s like the F-word. It’s like the other F-word, or maybe it’s the new F-word,” he said.

Scientist think avoiding the seafood is overboard and have said the levels of radiation in fish are less than what people are exposed to from x-rays.
Perez said he has to be able to stand behind what he serves, even if people think it’s extreme.

“It’s easy for people to be convinced that there’s no harm right now, and that’s part of the problem,” he said.

Although it’s an adjustment for customers, Perez said he’s not trying to stand out.

“That’s just part of who we are. And I cook because I want to please people. And I want people to be healthy with my food. I want them to feel good physically and spiritually. So that’s my intent, that’s the intent I put out there. So if I have a product that I feel uncomfortable with, and I don’t care if it’s an onion or a piece of meat or a piece of fish, it’s all the same. It has to be something that I can stand behind and say, ‘Please try this.'”

Fukushima: Your Days of Eating Pacific Ocean Fish Are Over

Collective Evolution
by Joe Martino

When it comes to environmental disasters, the nuclear fallout at Fukushima has to be amongst the worst that has happened in the past few decades. Andrew Kishner, founder of http://www.nuclearcrimes.org/ has put together a great resource of information that tracks what has been developing over time in Fukushima as it relates to the nuclear incident. You can check out his research further using the links below.

The following is written by Gary Stamper in regards to what has been happening with Fukushima.

“The heart-breaking news from Fukushima continues to get worse -a lot worse. It is, quite simply, an out-of-control flow of death and destruction.

TEPCO is finally admitting that radiation has been leaking to the Pacific Ocean all along and it’s not showing signs of stopping just yet.

It now appears that anywhere from 300 to possibly over 450 tons of contaminated water that contains radioactive iodine, cesium, and strontium-89 and 90, is flooding into the Pacific Ocean from the Fukushima Daichi site everyday.

To give you an idea of how bad that actually is, Japanese experts estimate Fukushima’s fallout at 20-30 times as high as as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings in 1945.

There’s a lot you’re not being told. Oh, the information is out there, but you have to dig pretty deep to find it, and you won’t find it on the corporate-owned evening news.”

Some Facts From Andrews research.

LATEST: TEPCO says they believe 10 trillion becquerels of strontium-90 (and also 20 trillion becquerels of cesium-137) have leaked into the ocean from the crippled reactor complex since 5/11. (source). This is a ridiculously low estimate. Also, radioactive tritium levels in the sea (seaport) at Daiichi are creeping up and up and up (we knew that was gonna happen).

RECENT: In the latest mess at Fukushima, one or more of the hundreds of storage tanks at the nuclear complex holding EXTREMELY radioactive liquid waste are leaking. The radioactive liquid waste is flowing into the soil and standing puddles are ‘hot,’ measuring, at surface, about 10 Rem/Hr. Even taken out of context of the ongoing ‘level 7′ Fukushima nuclear disaster, these disastrous spills are considered BAD. As it turns out, the leak crisis has received a distinct crisis categorization, classed ‘a level 3′ on an eight point international scale (INES).

7 Reasons Why Genetically Modified Foods Will Never Be Labeled And Why It Won’t Matter In The Future

Waking Times
by Natasha Longo

There are many arguments in favor of mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMO). However, corporate lobbyists have been very effective in preventing any GMO labeling legislation from being enacted into law. The public is in favor of the idea, but politicians are only on board until voting polls close after which point they revert back to the corporate ideology preventing people from ever knowing the truth about what’s in their food. In the west, the probability of such laws ever being passed are very unlikely. Hate to be a party pooper, but here are 7 reasons why GMO foods will never be labeled.

At least 21 countries and the European Union have established some form of mandatory labeling, but the food industry in the EU and US are two different beasts.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration currently requires labeling of GMO foods if the food has a significantly different nutritional property; if a new food includes an allergen that consumers would not expect to be present (e.g., a peanut protein in a soybean product); or if a food contains a toxicant beyond acceptable limits.

Even though it does exist, the generally accepted science of GMO foods does not clearly distinguish between its nutritional properties and those of non-GMO foods. Allergens are also known to be present in GMO foods, but this is largely ignored by the FDA. Also, now that the EPA has allowed Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicide at levels 60 times above toxic exposure for canola, soy, sunflower, flax and peanuts, it’s a free pass to chemically spray most GMO foods beyond acceptable limits.

To government scientists, it’s all the same and they don’t see a difference, not because one doesn’t exist, but because they refuse to acknowledge it.

Monsanto writes “There is no need to test the safety of GM foods”. So long as the engineered protein is safe, foods from GM crops are substantially equivalent and they cannot pose any health risks.” The US Food and Drug Administration waived all levels of safety testing in 1996 before approving the commercialization of these crops. Nothing more than voluntary research is necessary, and the FDA does not even want to see the results. And there is certainly no need to publish any of it. If you remember 1996, the year that the first crops were commercialized, the research scientists of the US FDA all predicted that transgenic crops would have unpredictable hard to detect side effects, allergens, toxins, nutritional effects, new diseases.

Unless you are geographically located in a dozen or so countries in the world who have declared GMO (genetically modified organism) bans, then you’re likely eating GMO. It’s almost impossible to avoid all GMO foods, however educating yourself can make a big difference in the percentage of GMO foods you purchase as a consumer.

Although consumers have a right to know what’s in their food, especially concerning products for which health and environmental concerns have been raised, there are 7 reasons why they are unlikely to be be identified on any labeled food products:

1. Mandatory labeling would allow consumers to identify and steer clear of food products that cause them problems. This would cause a ripple effect on the entire food industry causing information campaigns on some of the largest and most successful brands in the world, effectively removing their popularity through incremental education.

2. For religious or ethical reasons, many people want to avoid eating animal products, including animal DNA. More GMO foods are now being engineered with insect DNA and more experiments are taking place with animal DNA. If consumers were more informed through labeling initiatives, it would cause a massive backlash on well known brands of processed foods by these groups. Transgenic animals and crops would also come under fire.

3. Labels on GMO foods would imply a warning about detrimental health effects, which would stir controversy among millions who strive daily to maintain or advance their levels of health and wellness through dietary strategies. There are significant differences between GMO and conventional foods in terms of side effects, allergens, toxins, nutritional effects, and new diseases. Although no nutritional or allergenic differences are acknowledged by the FDA, labeling foods as GMO would immediately place the decision making process back into the hands of the consumer by-passing the regulatory agency’s control.

4. Labeling of GMO foods to fulfill the desires of health conscious consumers would come at a consequence to all food manufacturers who use GMO ingredients. Experience with mandatory labeling in the European Union, Japan, and New Zealand has not resulted in consumer choice. Rather, retailers have eliminated GMO products from their shelves due to perceived consumer aversion to GMO products. Can you imagine what the effect would be in the US?

5. Consumers who want to buy non-GMO foods currently have an option to purchase certified organic foods, which by definition cannot be produced with GMO ingredients. Labeling GMO ingredients would also affect the entire organic foods industry now generating hundreds of millions in revenue. Many consumers would revert back to conventional foods if they learned they did not contain GMO ingredients. This would cause a loss in profits to some large food manufacturers who have organic divisions within their brands.

6. If GMO foods were segregated from non-GMO foods, the food system infrastructure (storage, processing, and transportation facilities) would need to change drastically in a short period of time to accommodate the need for this change. The cost of labeling involves far more than the paper and ink to print the actual label. Accurate labeling requires an extensive identity preservation system from farmer to elevator to grain processor to food manufacturer to retailer. Either testing or detailed record-keeping needs to be done at various steps along the food supply chain. It would be very chaotic and the expense would go down the tubes if the majority of consumers avoided foods labeled as containing GMO ingredients. It’s a process the food industry knows would be extremely painful if it were to ever materialize.

7. If anti-GMO activists won the fight to pass GMO labeling legislation, it would set a precedent to every other highly controversial health topic in the hands of regulatory agencies. What next? Public health agencies would then be at risk at losing their credibility on other hot topics of debate such as fluoride in drinking water or vaccination. If populations were to win one huge battle that would free them from being incrementally poisoned, all government policy would be then be scrutinized and consumer advocate groups would stop at nothing to ensure all toxic public health policy would be dumped. It’s a loss of control and that’s something the cartels of the world are not interested in.

What’s The Solution and What Does The Future Hold?

If you haven’t figured out yet that our governments are not our best health and safety advocates, you haven’t been paying attention. We need to take the control away from the government and put it back into the hands of the people.

Content-based verification requires testing foods for the physical presence of foreign DNA or protein. A current application of this type of procedure is the analysis and labeling of vitamin content of foods. Methods for detecting the presence of GMO components in crops and processed foods are being discussed all over the world.

As the number of transgenes in commercialized crops increases, the techniques for detecting an array of different transgenes are becoming more sophisticated and even portable.

In the not too distant future, consumers will be able to run on-the-spot tests for environmental toxins, GMOs, pesticides, food safety and more with their smartphones and other hand-held devices.

“Modern biological research is also allowing an extension of laboratory devices on to small computer chips to detect biological information within DNA sequences,” said biotech specialist Dr. Marek Banaszewski. “Bioinformatic algorithms within programs will aid the identification of transgenes, promoters, and other functional elements of DNA, making detection of genetically modified foods on-the-spot and real-time without transportation to a laboratory.”

In a paper published in the journal Lab on a Chip, the team demonstrated sensing of an immune system protein, but the slide could be primed for any type of biological molecule or cell type. The researchers are working to improve the manufacturing process for the iPhone cradle and are working on a cradle for Android phones as well. They hope to begin making the cradles available next year.

Other handheld devices currently in development are portable chemiluminescence detectors, but based on enzyme-catalyzed reactions emitting light. The detection devices for nucleic acids, biotin associated with the target DNA provides the handle for the chemiluminescent detection. The non-radioactive DNA detection chemistry will be able to readily identify single-copy genes in transgenic plants making them suitable for GMO detection.

US Government decided to downplay Fukushima radiation

Radiation Truth

According to Arnie Gundersen, a energy advisor veteran with 39 years of experience as a nuclear power engineer, Fukushima is still unstable and leaking. Gunderson told SolarIMG that Americans are unaware they are being rained on with Fukushima nuclear hot particles and eating Fukushima contaminated food because the US government has deliberately minimized the catastrophe. This is partially due to a pact Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed with Japan. Gundersen, is working with a team of other scientists to prove government statements about Fukushima are false.

“The United States came up with a decision to downplay Fukushima,” said Gundersen who is awakening the public with information such as hot particles in rain will continue falling in the U.S., not just in the Pacific Northwest, for another year, and mentioning high-level fallout in Oklahoma a few days ago.

Gundersen said that Hillary Clinton signed a pact with her counterpart in Japan agreeing for the United States to continue buying food from Japan, even thought that food is not being properly tested for radioactive materials. Gunderson got the information from high-level people in the State Department.” So we are not sampling the food coming into the United States.

The US government has come up with a decision at the highest levels of the State Department, as well as other departments who made a decision to downplay Fukushima,” stated Gunderson.

In April, one month after the powerful tsunami and earthquake hit Japan, Gunderson said that “Hillary Clinton signed a pact with Japan that she agreed there is no problem with Japanese food supply and we will continue to buy them so we are not sampling food coming in from Japan.”

Gunderson has asked Americans with Geiger counters to send samples to him for an independent research team’s study.  Gundersen is convinced that the new study will prove that what the U.S. government is telling Americans is false.

Arnie Gundersen featured on his Fairwinds website a new documentary short titled, “Dial ‘M’ For Meltdown.” The video was created by Brian Rich to ensure the history of commercial nuclear power was documented and presented in an exciting way to a younger generation.

“I found most of the public was turned off by the complex nature of Nuclear Physics, even if what they didn’t know was going to kill them and their loved ones,” said Rich.

Is Fukushima stabilized? Many children to suffer thyroid cancer in three to five years

“The reactors are better than since the accident,” reported Gundersen, but “they all have holes on them, so they are not holding water.”
“Until a couple of weeks ago, they had to constantly add water. Now there’s a system in place that’s cleaning the water enough that they can pump it back into the reactor.”

The reactors are still creating “an enormous amount of waste,” said Gunderson, and that “the filters are hotter than a pistol.”
“I still believe water is leaking into the ocean and I know water’s leaking into the ground table.”

Gundersen is concerned about indications that there is still iodine on site plus, “enormous amounts of iodine have been in the water.”

“There’s an awful lot of kids that are going to have thyroid problems in the next three to five years as the result of this.”

Kicking the nuclear can, On the Edge: Unit 4, Contaminated food and water, Children and cancer 

Gundersen is “becoming increasingly concerned” about Fukushima’s impact on Americans.
He listed his major concerns related to Fukushima impact in the United States: Unit 4; radioactive beef, soil and rain; burning contaminated materials; and raising dose amounts.
Gunderson believes that Fukushima’s Unit 4 is “very fragile and could topple” in another earthquake.
Rather than a whole of government approach of resolving the radiation problem and protecting the people each Japanese prefecture is “doing its own thing”

“There is radioactive beef. There’s radioactive soil. There’s going to be radioactive straw.”

“The Japanese are not sampling enough,” said Gunderson, and Fukushima food is being bought by unwitting Americans.

The Japanese government arbitrarily increased the amount of “acceptable limits of radiation” a person can have, including raising child amount to the same as adults.

“For every 250 REM, you can expect a cancer,” he said. ”So for every 10 men… one of those 10 will get cancer as a result of working at Fukushima.”
“They’ve got 8,000 people on site,” so the chances are 50:50 an individual worker will get cancer.

Gunderson stated “I’m estimating over the next five years, you’re going to see a 20% increase in lung cancer. You’re not going to be able to say a person’s individual cancer came from Fukushima, but when you look at northern Japan, whatever the rate would have been, there will be a 20% more.”

Burning contaminated materials results in what Gundersen referred to as “kicking the can.”

“The Japanese are allowing the contaminated material to be burned as long as it’s less than 7000 Becquerels. What they’re also allowing is, if you have a high concentration material and a low concentration material, you can average those two out.”

The radioactive contaminated material being burned in one prefecture in Japan contaminates the neighboring prefecture.

“It eventually ends up into the Pacific Northwest, either into B.C., Oregon, Washington or California. The process of burning the radioactive material means they’re kicking the can down the road.”

Gundersen added, “The accident isn’t over. It’s continually throwing back up the cesium which is already on the ground and getting into plants.”
“It’s going to get worse now with the straw harvest,” he said, speaking about the Japanese rice harvest beginning in September.

“After the rice is harvested, the stra, like the rice it grew, will be contaminated. With a half-life of 30 years, you’re not going to let it set in your barn for 300 years. You’re going to burn it.”

As the contaminated straw is burned and kicked into the next prefecture, etc, it will eventually make its way over to the United States and Canada where it will come down in the rain.

So continued Gunderson, “Kick the problem to Hawaii or British Columbia or Oregon.”

“A rainout is when a radioactive cloud passes over an area and, due to a coincidental rainstorm, the hot particles get dropped on the soil.”
“We’re going to see another year of these rainouts.”

”Geiger counters were going off the scale” a few weeks ago in British Columbia, said Gundersen, who added that the ”only conclusion you could come to was industrial burning in Japan.”

Proving government wrong calls for citizenry participation
“I’m working with scientists to definitively prove what the government health officials say is wrong,” Gundersen stated, adding that the public can help do that.

He added, “now with lots of citizens having Geiger counters,” they can help with the new study by wiping a surface one meter by one meter with a cloth after a rainout, and placing that cloth under the Geiger counter.

“If you get a positive reading on the cloth, I’d like to see the cloth,” he said.

Gundersen advises people taking samples to note the location and time the sample was taken. He also requests that people wrap the sample in a triple layer of foil before mailing it to Fairwinds.

“Their constant truthful testimony against the nuclear industry… should be a real awakening to the public at large,” said Brian Rich. He also said that “Meeting Arnold Gundersen and his wife Maggie only opened my eyes to the dangers our country and civilization face because of decisions made decades ago and the lies created to further the nuclear agenda.”

Related: Shocking new study shows damage from radiation more damaging than at first thought!

Two thirds of pork products in U.S. supermarkets contaminated with fever-inducing bacteria

Daily Mail

Over two thirds of raw pork products sold in US supermarkets contain a dangerous bacteria that can lead to illness, a study has claimed.

The report found that a large proportion of pork products harbour bacteria – but the prevalence of yersinia enterocolitica is the most striking finding.

The food-borne pathogen was discovered in 69 per cent of all raw meat sampled in the study, carried out by Consumer Reports.

More well-known bacteria were significantly less prevalent in the study. Salmonella was found in only four per cent of products, while three per cent of meat samples tested positive for listeria.

Eleven percent of samples, most of which were taken from popular supermarkets, contained the enterococcus bacteria and seven percent contained staphylococcus aureus bacteria.

Yersinia enterocolitica affects more than 100,000 Americans every year, many of whom are children, and can induce fever, cramps and diarrhea.

The bacteria though is relatively unheard of and for every diagnosis it is estimated that 120 cases go undetected.

The study sampled a range of commonly consumed products, made up of 148 pork chops and 50 ground pork samples.
The ground pork samples proved more likely to carry bacteria than the chop samples.

Urvashi Rangan, who helped compile the report, described the results as ‘concerning’.

He told ABCNews: ‘It’s hard to say that there was no problem. It shows that there needs to be better hygiene at animal plants. Yersinia wasn’t even being monitored for.’

He emphasised the importance of cooking raw meat properly to kill bacteria, adding: ‘Anything that touches raw meat should go into the dishwasher before touching anything else.’

The study also found that many of the pathogens found were resistant to at least one form of antibiotic.

Critics argue that the use of therapeutic antibiotics in livestock increases the levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the environment.

The Pork Producer’s Council however questioned the validity of the study given the sample size used.

It said that the 198 samples did ‘not provide a nationally informative estimate of the true prevalence of the cited bacteria on meat’.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture said: ‘USDA will remain vigilant against emerging and evolving threats to the safety of America’s supply of meat, poultry and processed egg products, and we will continue to work with the industry to ensure companies are following food safety procedures in addition to looking for new ways to strengthen the protection of public health.’