Radiation and Seafood - Inconvenient Truth About "Clean Energy"

It strikes me as very odd that no media outlets seem concerned over the consequences of radiation in our environment - almost as if the poisoning of our environment by radioactivity is okay so long as no CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere.

The WSJ today reports that 80 kilometers off the cost of Japan fish are being caught with abnormally high amounts of radiation.  Something I predicted here in "Radiation in Your Seafood" back on March 18th - almost three weeks ago.  TEPCO will be dumping low-level radioactive water into the sea in order to attempt to clean up the highly radioactive water leaking out through the 20 cm crack in the basement of the reactor building.

Now this poisoning of our environment by radioactive materials is far, far more dangerous than CO2.

Why?

Because the results are permanent - at least relative to the lifespan of all the humans and many generations of their descendants.  Iodine 131 has a half life of several days - but all of the other products have much longer half lives - with plutonium in the environment lasting for 24,000 years.

As I pointed out in the "Global Dimwits" post a few days ago (and with the previous post on contrails linked to in my personal blog) things like jets and their measurable effect on the environment are virtually immediate: stop flying jets for a few days and the measurable temperature of the planet changes.

Not so with radiation - like Pandora's Box, once the nuclear vessels are opened up you cannot put the radiation back.

Now if we look back at the BP oil spill in the gulf and we compare our governments response to the effectively permanent pollution of the sea by nuclear energy we see a striking difference.  For example, in the case of BP a six month moratorium on off-shore drilling.  Yet when a reactor built over a fault is damaged by an earthquake we keep right on with our own nuclear program and over-the-fault-built plants (see my previous post "US Nukes and US Geological Faults").

Our government is somehow laboring under the false impression that CO2 and oil pollution of the sea is more dangerous than a leaking reactor.  However,

1) Oil is an organic compound with long and short chain hydrocarbons.  Compounds which can be broken down by bacteria.

2) Oil seepage from the sea floor occurs naturally (see this).

3) CO2 occurs naturally from a variety of sources.

as compared to

1) Plutonium, cesium-137 and iodine-131 exist only in reactors.

2) No life forms can ingest these elements and break them down.

3) Nuclear energy creates a wholly unnatural impact on the environment which is permanent.

The favoring of nuclear energy over other forms of power is completely and utterly insane.

This is also a classic example of "memory hole" from the novel 1984 by George Orwell. Today's news outlets like the Obama Administrations "Clean Energy" policy so things like Fukushima are quickly relegated to footnotes in favor of pro-administration positions.

What fools we are - our children and children's children kept safe from Chinese lead paint on toys like bicycles that they would never put in their mouths while Japanese reactors weep poisons into the sea.

Really - what is more important?

Unfortunately our current educational system turns out idiots who are unable to distinguish objective danger like radiation from subjective danger like CO2.  They are taught only to accept the common "Ministry of Truth" (again see Orwell's 1984) proclamations and "editing of history" as "knowledge" and "fact" and not to examine the situation for themselves.  The media is quietly erasing Fukushima from the news because the inconvenient truth of it spoils the governments view that nuclear energy is safe...