Does the Average Person Need to Worry About Genetic Damage and Fallout from Fukushima

The Answer is YES

This is from ENENEWS.  Its an example of the superior work that they do in bringing truth to the forefront, whilst so many other organization profit from covering up the truth, or bending the truth to their own twisted purposes.

Visit them, tell em "stock" sent you
http://enenews.com/bizarre-creature-turned-50-mile-stretch-of-california-coast-into-graveyard-in-summer-2011-govt-biologist-die-offs-like-this-very-rare-weve-never-seen-it-here-abalone/comment-page-1#comment-518524

And drop a comment here at the Nuke Pro blog
And sign up as a follower
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ENENews

May 12, 2014 at 12:33 pm · Reply

Hi ftlt, regarding your points about the time frame for genetic changes and oceanic transport of Fukushima radionuclides:
1) "There is time needed to cause genetic changes"
>> It appears the scientists conclude the genetic changes took place "suddenly" after something "virtually unheard of" in that part of the world appeared in 2011 and then retreated. From the SF Chronicle article: "a species of phytoplankton virtually unheard of in this part of the world… Its modus operandi… is to suddenly appear… then retreat into tiny invasion-of-the-body-snatcher-type pods until ocean conditions are ripe for another rampage."
2) "Would the ocean current have had time to impact California coast"
>> In 2011, the California coast was impacted by fallout transported through the air and then the subsequent run-off, not contamination transported by ocean currents.
*40,000,000 Bq of iodine-131 in a single bed of kelp off California in March 2011
http://enenews.com/40000000-bq-of-iodine-131-in-a-single-bed-of-kelp-off-southern-california-amount-most-likely-larger
*California kelp had 2,500 Bq/kg of iodine-131 in seaweed in March 2011
http://enenews.com/california-2500-bqkg-iodine-131-seaweed-500-higher-other-tests-canada
*Kelp Study Author: California iodine-131 probably double or triple what we reported
http://enenews.com/study-author-california-iodine-131-underestimated-probably-double-or-triple-what-we-reported-it%E2%80%99s-not-a-good-thing-dispersed-over-a-variety-of-organisms
*Ocean water collected near the coast of Santa Barbara County on on March 22, 2011 had 14.7 Bq/m³ of cesium-134 and -137.
http://enenews.com/tv-at-height-of-fukushima-emergency-in-the-very-spot-in-california-where-the-radioactive-plume-was-forecast-to-hit-had-no-working-monitors-foia-email-shows-epa-decided-not-to-deploy-radnet-to
*Sr. Scientist: Most shocking thing is how US gov’t was “very concerned” about Fukushima radiation hitting West Coast and affecting Americans — Public told that everything fine (VIDEO)
http://enenews.com/tv-most-shocking-thing-i-found-is-how-us-govt-was-very-concerned-about-fukushima-radiation-hitting-west-coast-and-affecting-americans-public-told-nothing-video
*U. of California Dean: We detected “far more than I expected” of Fukushima radioactive sulfur in March 2011 — “Unprecedented increase” reported
http://enenews.com/university-dean-we-detected-far-more-than-i-expected-of-fukushima-radioactive-sulfur-in-san-diego-after-311-unprecedented-increase-reported-by-chemists-statement-to-media-i-d
Many more reports from those early days here: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aenenews.com+california&num=100&rlz=1B7GGHP_enUS482US482&sa=X&ei=1fZwU4qCDJW0sQS9mYGYAQ&ved=0CBsQpwUoBg&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2011%2Ccd_max%3Adec+2012&tbm=