Dear John (James H.)

James Hansen

by Michael Mariotte of NIRS

November 13, 2015

Dear John,

Thanks for the e-mail yesterday from your PR firm, notifying me of the press conference you’re planning on December 3 in Paris, in conjunction with the COP 21 climate negotiations.

Though I have to admit I was a little surprised to receive it, seeing as how you never responded to my last letter to you. Remember? It was the one where I asked to debate you about nuclear power and whether it could be a solution to the climate crisis you have so ably articulated over the years? I even offered a very nice potential debate location here in Washington, where we could make sure there would be an audience and some media to chronicle the event.

I, along with my colleagues from the Civil Society Institute (oh, and more than 300 other groups as I recall) asked for that debate after you and three of your colleagues published an open letter to us–all of us critics of nuclear power–in November 2013 where you essentially told us to either support new nuclear power or shut up and go away.

But I guess the idea of an open letter wasn’t the same as wanting an open debate, because from you (and your three colleagues) I got bupkus. Nothing. Nada. Frankly, I–and all those 300+ organizations–took your silence as an admission that you were afraid to debate us, because, again frankly, when it comes to nuclear power you don’t know what you’re talking about. And your lack of knowledge on the subject is getting to be an embarrassment for those of us on the frontlines of the battle to build an effective response to the climate crisis. You see, it’s not only that nuclear power isn’t going to help with climate, for all the reasons we detailed in our letter to you, it’s that trying to go the nuclear route would be counterproductive–it would actually make things worse.

So, when I first noticed your PR firm’s e-mail sent to me, I thought perhaps you had reconsidered your blind support for nuclear power. After all, why send it to me at all otherwise? And I have to admit, the first couple of sentences were pretty promising. It says the same four of you are issuing a “stark challenge to world leaders and environmental campaigners” warning of “the increasing urgency of fully decarbonizing the world economy.” I couldn’t agree more.

But then you lost me, because the rest of the e-mail doesn’t talk much at all about the climate; rather, it sounds the same message as your November 2013 open letter: that environmentalists must accept nuclear power, that we need a lot of nuclear power, that renewables can’t do the job, and so on.

But John, let’s look at what’s changed in the energy world since November 2013. It’s pretty easy to do, just flip through the pages of GreenWorld and you’ll get a pretty good sense of it. On the nuclear front, let’s face it: the news hasn’t been good for the industry. More reactors have announced permanent shutdown. As for new reactors, all of those being built in the West at least have experienced more schedule delays and more cost overruns. All of them: Vogtle, Summer, Olkiluoto, Flamanville. China’s nuclear construction has slowed, partly because of the problems with Areva’s EPR reactor design. Despite a lot of sound and fury (or is that smoke and mirrors?) there hasn’t been much solid from the Russian nuclear industry either, though they did finally manage to finish the Koodankulam reactors in India after more than 20 years. Kind of like TVA almost finishing its second Watts Bar reactor after more than 40 years.

Building nuclear reactors takes a long time, and that time isn’t getting any shorter. And that’s why it’s puzzling that you, of all people–after all, you’ve been warning about the urgency of dealing with climate change since 1988 now–would even look twice at nuclear. The idea of betting our collective future on power plants that take 10, 15, 20 years and more to build doesn’t sound like someone who thinks climate is an urgent problem. It makes one wonder if your allegiance to the nuclear power industry now outweighs your commitment to dealing with the climate crisis.

On the other side of the coin, what’s changed in clean energy since November 2013 is huge. The biggest change can be summed up in one word: storage. Cheap, effective electricity storage just wasn’t around two years ago. Now, thanks to Elon Musk and Tesla–and Musk’s growing number of competitors in the storage field, it is. And it’s only going to get cheaper and better; it’s on the same kind of curve that dropped solar costs over the past ten years to the point where solar is now cheaper than nuclear just about everywhere in the U.S. That’s true for most of the world too. And wind is even cheaper. And both solar and wind continue to become more efficient.

So the old canard about solar and wind not being able to hack it because the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow, well, that’s what it is: an old canard. With storage, every generating technology is reliable “baseload” power.

And if we’re talking about the urgency of addressing the climate crisis–and we are–then consider where our new generation is already coming from: earlier this week the International Energy Agency reported that half of all new generation in 2014 was renewables, and that renewables are now the second largest generating source globally. Putting up renewables is fast: onshore wind farms take a year or two to erect, offshore wind longer–but tend to be much larger; utility-scale solar power plants also take only a year or two, rooftop solar takes a team of 4 people about a day. Multiply that by thousands of such teams and that’s why a dozen or so new solar rooftops have been installed in the U.S. alone since I started writing this letter to you a couple hours ago (I took a break for lunch, you see).

The other big change, which we’ve also chronicled in these pages, is where the smart money is going. It’s really not me and other clean energy advocates you have to convince to support nuclear power; we may have the best arguments, but we don’t have the decision-making power. No, you have to convince the folks at Citibank, and Goldman Sachs, and UBS, and all the other investment houses and financial analysts who have decided to put their money on clean energy–not nuclear power.

Earlier this week, Citibank put out a report pointing out that moving to clean energy will actually save the world money–a trillion dollars or more.  Goldman Sachs is putting up hundreds of its own dollars in clean energy investment. If you’ll scroll down through GreenWorld, you’ll find many more reports and analyses from these kinds of institutions. Stories like this one from March, headlined: Deutsche Bank: Solar has already won.

Meanwhile, John, despite your increasingly shrill support for nuclear power and against clean energy advocates (and yes, I’m not going to forget when you told climate funders not to fund us), your message is not resonating in another key sector: the world’s governments. Instead, Germany, with its increasingly successful Energiewende energy transition is leading the way. They’re showing the world how to move away from both nuclear power and fossil fuels, and building a nuclear-free, carbon-free energy system. Not that it’s easy, or immediate, but when you compare it to how long some nuclear reactors have taken to build, it’s not all that slow either. And, in fact, it’s so successful that even France–yes, France, the world’s most nuclear country–adopted a law this Spring to begin moving away from nuclear and toward more renewables and energy efficiency. As a climate change measure. We’ve been covering that here in GreenWorld too; here’s one of the most popular stories, titled The accelerating decline of French nuclear power.

I’m actually kind of honored that you would focus your ire on us clean energy advocates, that you think we have such power that we can turn around those governments, and all those Wall Street investment types, and the technologies themselves, and get them all to support nuclear power and somehow build new reactors quickly and cheaply enough to make a difference for the climate. Well, I’ll let you know when I get that kind of magic wand; though when I do I doubt I’ll use it to promote nuclear power. But I might put up a Tesla PowerWall in my house.

I was so impressed with your performance in those 1988 Congressional hearings, when you first came to national prominence by warning our elected officials about the need to take urgent action on climate. Your credentials and the science behind your statements were impeccable. I was paying attention then because, when you were testifying, I was working on my first article about nuclear power and climate, where I pointed out that the nuclear industry would certainly be attempting to use climate as a rationale for more nuclear. I also pointed out then that since it was the same utilities and companies that built and operated both nuclear and fossil fuel plants that it would be hard to take their nuclear-is-the-answer position too seriously–they were the guilty parties in the first place.

But it was easy to predict what would happen. Already back then, Colorado Senator Timothy Wirth was promoting an “advanced” reactor–his choice was the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) being touted then by General Atomics. It didn’t take a genius to figure out where the nuclear industry would be going. Nor did it take a genius to predict the failure of the whole concept of 4th generation reactors. Now, 27 years later, none of those 4th generation reactors are any closer to commercial deployment than they were back then. That’s because they’re either too expensive, or don’t work at all, or the whole notion of trying to make an inherently dangerous technology “inherently safe” is inherently absurd. These designs, whether they be thorium or integral fast reactors, or the PBMRs, or whatever (and some of these designs are more than 50 years old now) exist only on paper for a reason. Yet you continue to tout them as if they are real. I have to say, that kind of draws into question your expertise in this area.

And clearly energy economics isn’t your area of expertise either. Otherwise you’d know what the Wall Street types know: nuclear is simply too expensive to be viable in the clean energy world of the 21st century. To be honest, John, I wish you’d stick to what you do know: climate science, and leave the energy part of the issue–the how we’re going to solve the climate crisis part–to the energy experts. You’ve been the beacon, the warning sign, a modern-day Paul Revere warning our entire planet, and I can’t tell you how much I appreciate that. Really, we all owe you a very large debt of gratitude.

But now you’re calling a press conference at the most important climate negotiations ever, and you plan to tell environmentalists that we need to support nuclear power? That’s the sum total of your message now? That we should embrace the only low-carbon technology that releases toxic radiation into the air and water every day? That has a nasty habit of experiencing a major disaster once a decade or so that kills thousands and leaves parts of our planet permanently uninhabitable? That generates lethal and essentially eternal waste that our planet does not know how to store or isolate from our only environment for its hazardous life? That, for all the reasons stated above, is too slow to be useful in reducing carbon emissions and is so expensive that investing in it would crowd out the investments we could (and should and will) make in clean energy that will reduce those emissions faster and cheaper?

I’m sorry, John, but the only thing that has changed since your November 2013 letter is that renewables are even more viable and nuclear is even less so. Yet you keep repeating your tired old refrain as if repetition will change reality. It won’t.

So even if I make it to Paris next month (and for health reasons I’m afraid I probably won’t), I’m going to pass on your press conference. You’ve clearly got nothing new to say, and what you do have to say only exposes how little you know about the subjects you’re talking about. I really wish you’d stick to those that you do know. I wish you’d really bring home to the COP 21 delegates the sense of urgency needed. I wish, with the kind of clarity and force you’re capable of, you would get them to adopt really meaningful, stringent climate goals; goals that give our planet a chance. Then, please step aside. We already know the “how” part–that is a nuclear-free, carbon-free energy system. We can meet the goals if the world’s governments will only give us the opportunity. The technology is here; we need you to help provide the political will–not to come in bearing false solutions from a failed industry.

It’s too bad. This should be your time, and instead you’re wasting it. The problem isn’t me, John. Nor the rest of us working for a clean energy future. The problem is you.


Michael Mariotte
Nuclear Information and Resource Service

Fukushima, Miso Soup and Me

By Sheila Parks
We can never be too careful when it comes to feeding ourselves and our families. There are no safe foods any longer. Only safer foods. One of hardest things I did right after Fukushima was to give up my beloved miso soup. I had been eating miso soup daily for many decades. And I thought to myself, I am probably never going to be able to eat it again. And for me, now, three plus years later, that remains true.

Sheila Parks at People's Climate March 2014


We can never be too careful when it comes to feeding ourselves and our families. There are no safe foods any longer. Only safer foods.

One of the personal, hardest things I did right after the Fukushima Diachii nuclear power plant tragedy and disaster, on March 11, 2011, was to give up my beloved miso soup. I had been eating miso soup daily for many decades. And I thought to myself, I am probably never going to be to eat it again. And for me, now, threeplus years later, that remains true.

More recently because of my getting very involved in Fukushima and the issue of radiation from it, because of my interest in eating healthy food the last 40 years and because I believe I am what I eat, I began researching the food that I had been eating and was eating. Was it radioactive? Where did it come from? I knew that I did not knowingly want to eat any food from Japan. And I knew that I wanted to tell others about food that could be radioactive due to Fukushima, just as I had been telling them for decades about vegetarianism, veganism, the importance of eating only organic, not eating GMO’s, that we are what we eat, and on and on.

Because miso soup is included in almost all, if not all, of the lists of what is good to eat to combat and detox from radiation, I decided to start own miso soup investigation.

Miso soup is often eaten by health-conscious people, and I am a very health-conscious person. I have been an organic vegetarian for 40 years so no fish, fowl, meat and in and out of veganism. I made this change in my life for health, spiritual, ethical, and sustainability reasons. Forty years ago, it was neither fashionable nor trendy, but rather, on the fringes. It was a very easy move for me and I never wanted to go back. I still find being a vegan hard because I like cheese, yogurt, kefir and eggs a lot, but when Fukushima happened, so many of the health food people to go vegan that I did again. Now, since Fukushima, and all the “to eat” lists that miso soup is on, it appears that many more people are thinking about eating miso, talking about eating miso or are already eating it anew.

Because miso is known for its healing properties in general, as well as its healing of radiation sickness, as a detox for radiation, and perhaps even healing and/or preventing cancer, it is often if not always listed as something to eat now to heal from the radiation from Fukushima that we might have been or are currently exposed to. A scholarly article and experiment about miso by Hiromitsu Watanabe in 2013 on the healing aspects of miso is often quoted. Given all this current emphasis on eating miso, I felt compelled to do further research to confirm my understanding that miso does indeed come from Japan, before I began to suggest to others that they reconsider eating miso after Fukushima.

I do not write this paper to denounce miso nor to decry its efficacy. I ate miso soup consciously and intentionally for decades and I miss it a lot. write this paper to question how safe it is to eat it today, after Fukushima, how safe it is to eat anything that comes from Japan now no matter how small the amount and no matter how safe it supposedly is. How do we know whether or not to trust those who do the measurements and us it is all right to eat foods from Japan?

I also write this paper because I think it is crucial that we all stay as healthy as we possibly can, given all the radiation and contamination from Fukushima, Hanford Nuclear Reservation in the state of Washington, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), in New Mexico, and all the other nuclear power plants in the world. In 2011, AP reported from an investigation they did that “Radioactive leaks [were] found at 75% of US nuclear sites.” think it is crucial that we mitigate what is happening to our planet and to us because of Fukushima. We need all the information we can not an “either/or,” but rather a “both/and” woman. That means, to borrow from Dorothy Day, I like to do both: not only stop the speeding train, i.e., act to shut down all nuclear power plants now, to advocate for change to solar, wind, geothermals and to work to get an international team charge of Fukushima; but also and simultaneously to strive to help the survivors of that speeding train, and that means all of us, and especially, course, all the children of the world. And part of this mitigation means we have to take care of ourselves. Like in an airplane when the oxygen masks come down, the adult has to put theirs on first, before putting the child’s on or both adult and child can die. To mitigate the situation right now, for every human being and animal on the planet as best we can, leads me to miso soup.


My instinct not to eat food that comes from Japan was very strongly confirmed when I watched a June 6, 2013 video and read the accompanying text under it: “Fukushima Farmers vs Japanese Government: ‘Our Farmland Has Been Seriously Contaminated!‘” in which farmers talk about food they are growing and selling after Fukushima. It gives one of the most honest and forthright assessments of the situation that I have seen. And firsthand experience from the farmers. It is the “38th National Action Day of Environmental Pollution Victims: Negotiations with TEPCO/Japanese Government.” One of the farmers says, “I know there is contamination in what we grow. I feel guilty about growing and selling them to consumers”.We are not removing the contamination.” I don’t see how the situation can have gotten any better. Only worse.


John LaForge, codirector of Nukewatch, a nuclear watchdog and environmental justice group in Wisconsin, tells us, “Japan has decided that fish contaminated with fewer than 100 Becquerels per kilogram (Bq/kg) of cesium137 is good enough to eat. Some local officials have set a stricter of 50 Bq/kg.”

LaForge continues, “In the U.S. the permissible level of cesium in food is 1,200 Bq/kg. Canada allows 1,000 Bq/kg. The difference is startling. huge discrepancy allows importation by the U.S. and Canada of what Japan considers highly contaminated fish, vegetables and meat. Rice, fish, beef and other Japanese exports poisoned by nuclear power’s single worst nightmare is doubtless being consumed in the United States.” unconscionable that the USA and Canada have set their bars for the permissible level of Cesium or other radionuclides in food to be so much higher than Japan’s limits. For me, there is never any permissible level for any country to allow radionuclides in our food. Some noted nuclear scientists quoted by Beyond Nuclear say that “There is No Safe Dose of Ionizing Radiation.” I agree. My article about the Pacific Ocean and my suggestion about food from the ocean may also be useful in this regard.


Much attention is also being paid now to Dr. Shinichiro Akizuki and his treatment of patients at or very near the epicenter of the Nagasaki bombing by the USA during WWII. Akizuki was the director of the Saint Francis Hospital in Nagasaki at the time. He treated patients at the hospital not with miso soup, but also with a very strict macrobiotic diet both before and after the bombing. Akizuki thought that it was the miso soup and diet that saved both him and his patients from dying, while others died and/or suffered horribly from burns and radiation sickness.

I have been ruminating on this for some time now. How could eating miso soup and seaweed that came from Ground Zero possibly have protected anyone from anything? Maybe I should/could/would go back to eating miso soup after all? But no matter what anyone said, I knew that path was not for me. We all draw our lines in the sand in different places.

This quote from a report on Akizuki and his work helped my thinking on this a lot. “Since the hospital was luckily used as a storage center for miso, soy sauce, and seaweed, as well as brown rice of that communal area, the hospital staff could supply their patients with traditional food. As a result, he was able to help many people survive from the direct injury, while other survivors perished or suffered from severe radiation sickness.” So they were eating food from before the bombing of Nagasaki, not after. That confirmed my thoughts about not eating food from Japan after Fukushima. My questions, though, about where their storage center was and how it was protected from the bombing of Nagasaki, linger.


The nuclear catastrophe at Chernobyl occurred on April 26, 1986. No matter how much I search, I cannot find a citation for what I have read in number of articles about there being truckloads of miso going to Ukraine/Belarus after Chernobyl. Perhaps the story is apocryphal. But in any case, since Chernobyl was before Fukushima, miso from Japan could have been used without the fear of its being irradiated and contaminated. Incidentally, I ran off to my local health food store right after Fukushima and bought some kelp that I was sure was on their shelves before Fukushima happened.


Before going any further, an explanation of what miso is, and what it is made of, is necessary. Miso is a thick paste, most often made from soybeans (but also from rice, barley, rye, buckwheat, millet, azuki beans, chickpeas and other grains), salt and koji culture. Miso is always fermented. Miso 101 from Hikari Miso Co., located in Nagano, Japan, is an easy, understandable read about miso. A History of Miso and Soybean Chiang is a very detailed and interesting account.


Miso is always fermented with a mold culture, a fungus called Aspergillus oryzae, or koji. This mold culture, koji, always comes from Japan.

Another explanation says it this way, “The starter culture for miso is called koji. Koji is prepared by inoculating steamed rice with the fungus Aspergillus oryzae (in some cases barley replaces rice). The rice koji is then added to steamed soyabeans and allowed to ferment. Miso is naturally fermented and can be left unpasteurized, aging in wooden casks.”


William Shurtleff is an expert on miso, perhaps the expert on miso in today’s world. In 2007, he and Akiko Aoyagi, in a “History of Miso and Soybean Chiang,” end with this statement: “Today, the northeastern provinces are known as the ‘miso heartland’ of Japan; the percapita consumption there is the highest in the nation and the ancient homemade miso tradition is still very much alive. These facts, combined with the archaeological evidence indicating early mastery of saltpickling and fermentation, move some scholars to go so far as to trace the origins of miso and shoyu) to this part of Japan rather than to China or Korea.”


Shurtleff and Aoyagi give a very detailed, with dates included, “History of Koji Grains and/or Soybeans Enrobed with a Mold Culture (300BCE 2012).” They provide the following description: “Koji is a culture prepared by growing either Aspergillus oryzae or Monascus purpureus mold on cooked grains and/or soybeans in a warm, humid place. Koji serves as a source of enzymes that break down (or hydrolyze / digest / split) natural plant constituents into simpler compounds when making miso, soy sauce, sake, amazake, and other fermented foods. Its fragrant white (or red) mycelium, which looks somewhat like the surface of a tennis ball, has a delightful aroma resembling that of mushrooms.”


After much research, the main thing I can say about Aspergillus orzyae is that it can be found in air, water and soil. I do not understand at all it comes only from Japan. I cannot help but wonder if we can get Aspergillus orzyae elsewhere. Perhaps, China? Because whether or not it originated in Japan or not, it certainly was used there a very long time ago.

However, wherever miso originated, China, Korea or Japan, every article I read said that today koji comes only from Japan: “Koji Mold is only and exists in Japan and is considered to be a valuable asset and more like cultural heritage that has been managed and nurtured by our ancestors in the past. In 2006 The Brewing Society of Japan has officially recognized Koji Mold as a national mold. Koji Mold is classified as Aspergillus genus, filamentous (stringlike) mold with a spore whose size is 510 μm. Its weight is so light that 1g of Koji mold contains 10 billion spores. Different from plants, Koji Mold is nonphotosynthetic and asexual (no distinction between male and female).”

In their aforementioned “History of Koji….,” Shurtleff and Aoyagi discuss its early origins: “725 CE The Harima no Kuni Fudoki [Geography Culture of Harima province], from Japan, is the first document that mentions koji outside of China. It states that by the early 8th century in Japan, koji was being made using airborne koji molds.” [I called and spoke briefly on the telephone with Shurtleff on January 31, 2014, and he said it fine to quote him.]

A 2008 paper in Oxford Journals’ DNA Research about Aspergillus orzyae sheds some light on the production and distribution of the mold in Japan. Further research would need to be done to see whether or not these figures are still true in 2014. “Figure 1 [depicts] A historical signboard of a producer of A. oryzae conidiospores. Aspergillus oryzae conidiospores are industrially produced and are distributed to fermentation companies. suppliers were established 600 years ago (Muromachi period). No other suppliers were established before A.D. 1718th. The figure shows a photograph of an original signboard, Kuroban (black stamp), prepared under the license of Kojiza, the association of A. oryzae conidiospores suppliers during the Muromachi period. Currently there are five major distributors in Japan supplying A. oryzae conidiospores to 4500 sake (Japanese alcoholic beverage, ca. 1900 brewers), miso (soybean paste, ca. 1200 brewers) and shoyu (soy sauce, ca. 1500 brewers) brewers in Japan, excluding several of the biggest soy sauce companies.”


To probe further about the sources of koji, I initiated email conversations with three companies about their miso: one in Japan, one in the USA one in the UK. I asked where their koji came from, and if it was tested for radiation and if so, where and by whom. Each company stated that use koji from Japan to make their miso. Their answers varied about where in Japan the koji came from and if tested and how, but suffice to say that the answers from all three companies did nothing to allay my fears about eating miso. These email exchanges are in the APPENDIX at the of this paper.


As I was writing this article, several well known no nukes experts/activists, a radiation expert and a Tokyo doctor who moved to western Japan, away from Tokyo, confirmed my worst fears about eating post Fukushima foods from Japan.

This, of course, includes my beloved miso soup, with koji culture always sourced from Japan. In an interview with Dr. Helen Caldicott by Oliver McElligott for Community radio BayFM broadcasting out of Byron Bay, Australia and published February 26, 2014, Dr. Caldicott says at 11:10 into the recording “”huge areas of Japan are contaminated. The food is contaminated and the fish”.” At 15:12, McElligott tells her he remembers her saying, “Don’t eat sushi.” At 15:18 she says “”don’t eat any Japanese food. None. No rice. No meat. No seaweed. Nothing.”

At a presentation in Kyoto, Japan (mostly in Japanese), published March 24, 2014, Caldicott points to a map of Japan called “LOCAL FALLOUT” says “As you can see, the whole land mass is contaminated to a greater or lesser extent.”

In an April 3, 2014, Fairewinds transcript from a video by Marco Kaltofen, with an introduction by Arnie Gundersen, we learn that the hot particle sample they examined “”came from the Nagoya in Japan. It’s 460 kilometers from the accident site. That’s about 300 miles away.” (Meltdowns involving nuclear fuel can create “hot particles.”

The fuel first vaporizes and then cools into microscopic particles that have a tendency to aggregate together. They are often carried by the winds. Some are in a size range easy to inhale and capable of lodging in our lungs.) “Even a single hot particle consumed or inhaled into the body can cause a cancer,” says Dr. Andy Kanter, MD, MPH, at a May 4, 2012 NYC Press Conference about Fukushima.

Kaltofen also defines Becquerel for us: “In Japan, we measure radiation in Becquerels. A Becquerel is obviously named after someone. It’s named after Henri Becquerel. And a Becquerel means one radioactive disintegration per second. Now in Japan, if your food has more than 100 Becquerels in a kilogram, about 45 Becquerels in a pound, then it’s not considered safe to eat. The number is a bit higher in the United States, but if we use 100 Becquerels per kilogram as a guide it’s something too radioactive to eat”” So, the number of Becquerels is one measure of how radioactive something is and is what a Geiger counter measures. If a Geiger count clicks five times every second, that is five Becquerels. If it clicks five times over a ten second period, that is half a Becquerel. The Becquerels measure how fast the counter is clicking. In other words, the Becquerel is like speedometer (which measures miles per hour) not an odometer (which measures total number of miles).

On June 27, 2014, Radiation expert Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear was interviewed about Fukushima on NEXT NEWS NETWORK. At 12:37 the interviewer asks Kamps, “” what about the food industry, are they doing any testing?” Kamps responds, “they’re doing woefully inadequate testing … in fact United States regulations are much weaker than Japan’s … so Japan has a standard of 100 becquerels per kilogram of radioactive cesium in food … that’s 100 radioactive disintegrations per second per second, per second, per second, ongoing in 2.2 lbs of food. Here in the United States, our standard is 1,200 becquerels of cesium per kilogram of food … our standards are twelve times weaker … it means we could be importing food unfit for human consumption in Japan, and it’s perfectly legal to serve it to children on the dinner table here in the United States.”

In an interview published on February 13, 2014, Tokyo physician Dr. Shigeru Mita talks about his concerns with people, especially children, living Tokyo. He responds to a question by interviewer Nelson Groom about the food from Tokyo: “What are your thoughts on food contamination? Do you think there are any dietary precautions that people should be taking? Dr. Mita: “In Japan, commercial distribution is prosperous, so some the contaminated food is definitely coming to Tokyo. A lot of people claim that we have to eat all of the local products to sustain the economy, think that we should be testing everything thoroughly, and that at least children should be spared from eating food with any risk of contamination.”

In July 2014, the World Network For Saving Children From Radiation posted an interview with Dr. Shigeru Mita, who stated, “It is clear that Eastern Japan and Metropolitan Tokyo have been contaminated with radiation. Contamination of the soil can be shown by measuring Bq/kg. Within the districts of Metropolitan Tokyo, contamination in the east part is 10004000Bq/kg and the west part is 3001000 Bq/kg. The contamination of the capital city of Ukraine, is 500 Bq/kg (Ce137 only). West Germany after the Chernobyl accident has 90 Bq/kg, Italy has 100 and France has Bq/kg on average. Many cases of health problems have been reported in Germany and Italy. Shinjuku, the location of the Tokyo municipal government, was measured at 0.51.5 Bq/kg before 2011.”

Given these extremely dangerous levels of radiation in Tokyo, I urge you to sign and then share widely this petition by Dr. Carol Wolman, MD, the USA, asking “radioactive Tokyo” to resign as the host of the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo.

Meanwhile, the government of Japan continues to push aggressively on with exporting their food. On June 14, Iori Mochizuki tells us in his Fukushima Diary that the “Japanese government aims to double the food export by 2020. They are investing to promote food from and made Japan collaborating with ‘Cool Japan'”The budget includes the exhibition cost of 1.1 billion yen for EXPO Milan. From the research of Fukushima Diary, this budget to increase Japanese food export has been skyrocketing since 2012″In order to ‘restore’ the credibility and ‘brand’ of Japanese food damaged by Fukushima accident, the government of Japan budgeted 1.5 billion yen in 2012. It jumped up to 11 billion yen in 2013. By 2014,
it’s already increased by 14 times since 2012.”


My don’t knows, and still trying to find outs, as I write this: Where exactly in Japan does koji come from today and does that even matter? places where it comes from near Fukushima and does that really matter? On our grocery shelves, is koji clearly and specifically stated as an ingredient in miso? N.B. It appears to be the law in the USA that miso could be called a product of the USA on its label, so you would not even know where koji comes from, even if it is listed as an ingredient in miso. The previous sentence needs another whole article about labeling of foods. Labeling is a much wider problem than only the horrific one of not labeling GMO’s. Is miso tested for radiation, and if so, by whom and how often? Are the results made public?

The wonderful and valuable Eat and Beat Cancer blog by Harriet Sugar Miller also talks about the great benefits of miso soup. And, unlike all the many other lists I have read, Miller give us this crucial caveat: “And of course, you’ll want to purchase clean sources of both seaweed miso. You can find some on the net or at your local health food store. (If the products are from Japan, make sure they were shipped prior to the disaster.)” The last sentence, weirdly in parenthesis, says it all.


I still do not eat miso soup. Although some insist otherwise, for me, there is no safe exposure to radiation, no matter how small the amount. I not knowingly want to eat any food from Japan. These days, instead of my beloved miso soup, some of the foods I eat, hopefully to take a similar healthy place, include: 1) organic, raw shelled hemp seeds by Manitoba Harvest, sourced from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, Canada; organic chia seeds from two companies: organic and fair trade black chia seeds by Himalania, labeled “Product of Peru and Paraguay” (that kind label can be very deceptive and requires another whole paper), and also organic chia seeds by 365 Everyday Value by Whole Foods, labeled “PRODUCT OF PERU” (same comment as above); 3) organic flax seeds by Barlean’s, sourced from North Dakota, USA and Saskatchewan, Canada.

I have spoken with each company to find out the specific place each of these is sourced from, country of origin, and, if applicable, the state(s) USA or province(s) in Canada. I check these often and sometimes change products, as companies are often changing their vendors and sources origin. I am still urgently looking for organic hemp hearts that do not come from Alberta, Canada. The city of Calgary, one of the fracking centers Canada is in Alberta and that is where hemp hearts seem to come from, no matter where I search.

To reiterate, we can never be too careful when it comes to feeding ourselves and our families. There are no safe foods any longer. Only safer foods.

NOTE: This article and its appendix are licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNoncommercialNoderivs
Unported License(US/v.30)


All email sequences are in reverse chronological order. I have deleted the names, direct phone numbers and email addresses of the people in the companies that I corresponded with.

From: “Hikari Miso International, Inc.”
To: “‘Sheila Parks'”
Subject: RE: Hikari Miso Thank you for your inquiry!
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:50:08 0800

Hi Sheila,
I am XXXXB and I will reply on behalf of XXXXA. We only test our domestic ingredients(made in Japan), and we do not test our final products.
We do not use domestic ingredients for our Shio Koji. Only koji culture is made in Kyushu(Southern) Japan. The area is not affected radiation.

Best Regards,

TEL (310) 988xxxb
From: Sheila Parks []
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 12:05 PM
Cc: Email address
Subject: Re: Hikari Miso Thank you for your inquiry!

Hello again, dear XXXXA,
I am wondering if you test the koji for radiation and if so, where? And also, if radiation is found in the koji, how many becquerels?

Thank you again,
At 06:15 PM 2/7/2014, you wrote:

Hi Sheila,
The koji culture is made Nagano Prefecture.

Thank you!

On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 21:50:440500,
Sheila Parks wrote:

Thank you so much and for your fast response. Can you tell me what prefecture(s) in Japan? Thank you again and I am looking forward to hearing from you.


At 08:46 PM 2/6/2014, you wrote:
Dear Ms. Parks, Thank you for reaching out to us at Hikari Miso! It’s always wonderful to hear from our customers. To answer your question, yes, all of our miso contains a koji culture. It is this wonderful element that initiates the fermentation process to create our high quality miso. Our koji made in Japan. Please let me know if you have any more questions.


Sales Representative
Are you an Individual
Title: Ms. First Name Sheila
Last Name Parks
Company Name
Country USA
What will this Email be about? Products
Comments or Questions

Thank you so much for your very informative web site. I am wondering if all miso has koji culture in it. And if so, where yours comes from. Thank you very much. I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Sales Representative
2281 W. 205th St. #106
Torrance, CA 90501
TEL 310903xxxa
FAX (310) 8780356
AUTHOR’S NOTE: The distance between Fukushima to Nagano is 147 miles.
AUTHOR’S NOTE: The distance from Fukushima to Kyushu is 606 miles.
AUTHOR’S NOTE: Report of cesium found in mushroom made in Kyushu, September 30, 2012.
AUTHOR’S NOTE This last email, from me, was never answered, to date of this writing.
QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 15:01:07 0500
From: Sheila Parks sheilaxxxx|AT|comcast.netEmail address>
Subject: Re: South River Miso Co., Inc. Email Response
Cc: sheilaxxxx|AT|comcast.netEmail address

Hello again, dear YYYYY,
Can you tell me what a “researched and ‘clean’ facility” means? Also, if radiation is found in the koji, how many becquerels?

Thank you again,

From: “
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 11:26:22 0500
From: Sheila Parks
Subject: Re: South River Miso Co., Inc. Email Response
Thank you so much
At 11:13 AM 2/5/2014, you wrote:

Sheila The spores come from Akita.

10/6/2014 Printer Friendly Page | OpEdNews 8/9
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:44 PM, sheilaxxxx|AT| sheilaxxxx|AT|comcast.netEmail address wrote:

Thank you for your fast response.
Can you tell me which prefecture(s) in Japan the koji comes from?

Thank you again,
To: Sheila Parks
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 2:10:41 PM
Subject: Re: South River Miso Co., Inc. Email Response

Sheila The Aspergillus oryzae spores used to make koji come from Japan from a thoroughly researched and “clean” facility.


On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Sheila Parks wrote:


Dear South River Miso, Thank you for your very informative website. I am wondering if you could please tell me where your koji culture comes from that is, the country of origin and where within that country?  And do you have it tested for radiation and other toxics, no matter where  it comes from?hank you, I am looking forward to hearing from you.

ext yyy
AUTHOR’S NOTE : The distance between Fukushima to Akita is 136.83 miles
AUTHOR’S NOTE: “About 3 tablespoons of spore powder are used for 350 pounds of grain.” Ratio koji culture and grain from South
River Miso website.
AUTHOR’S NOTE: For full disclosure, South River Miso was the miso I used for a long time. It came in glass jars, it was made locally
(I did not know about the Japanese connection at that time) and it tasted great.
From: quality quality|AT| address>
To: “Sheila Parks”
Subject: RE: A question for you
A question for you
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 13:30:58 +0000

Dear Sheila,

The Koji culture is always manufacturer specific. If location of the manufacturer is situated in the affected area than the end product comes with radiation certificate conducted by an authorized laboratory. If location of the manufacturer is situated elsewhere then we get a statement from manufacturer that the radiation certificate is not needed because of the location. None of the products from Japan can come to the European Union without this statement. We do all necessary steps in order to provide product safety. For further details please read the Food and Safety section Safety on Japanese imports.
Should you have any further questions, don’t hesitate to contact me.

Best Regards,

10/6/2014 Printer Friendly Page | OpEdNews 9/9
Quality Assurance Administrator | Clearspring Ltd. | +44 (0) 20 8735 zzzz (direct line) |+44 (0)20 8746 2259 (fax)
19A Acton Park Estate, London, W3 7QE, UK

Sheila Parks
Sent: 02 February 2014 03:12
To: Info
Cc: Email address
Subject: A question for you
Importance: High

Dear Clearspring,
Thank you for your informative web site I just sent this off to you on the form on your web site, but thought to send it this way also.
In your FAQ you speak to where your sea vegetables come from. I am writing to ask where your koji culture comes from? And if you have it tested for radiation? And if so, by who?

Thank you so much, I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Sheila Parks
NOTE: This article and its appendix are licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNoncommercialNoderivs
Unported License(US/v.30)

Submitters Website:
Submitters Bio:
Sheila Parks, Ed.D.,is now working to stop Fukushima and to shut down all nuclear power plants, all of which are crimes against humanity. She spent many years in the struggle against nuclear weapons with the Catholic Left. Many of those years involved lots of nonviolent civil disobedience against nuclear weapons and other evils of the USA society. She spent a year in prison for a Plowshares action against first strike nuclear weapons, Trident II. Defending the abortion clinics with her body for many years was a part of her feminist activities. Parks spent 13 years working for voting rights, against all electronic voting machines and for the solution of handcounting.
She is the author of a book, published September 6, 2012: “WHILE WE STILL HAVE TIME: The Perils of Electronic Voting Machines and Democracy’s Solution: Publicly Observed, Secure HandCounted Paper Ballots (HCPB)Elections” and the Founder of the Center for HandCounted Paper Ballots. She is a researcher and writer who lives in Watertown, and is an ardent feminist, internationalist and peace & justice activist/organizer.

Statement to the NRC on the FitzPatrick plant in NY State

Alliance for a Green Economy (AGREE) has petitioned the NRC to suspend the license of FitzPatrick until there is a thorough review of their woefully inadequate venting system and until there is one or more public hearings. Today, staffer of AGREE (Jessica Azulay) and Paul Gunter (Beyond Nuclear, a national organization) spoke in person before the NRC Petition Review Board near Washington, D.C. while three others spoke by phone. Chapter member Linda DeStefano’s statement to the NRC is below. Nice work, Linda – Jessica Helm, Sierra Club

Statement made by Linda DeStefano to the NRC Petition Review Board today, 4.18.12

I’m the representative from the Atlantic Chapter of the Sierra Club to the Alliance for a Green Economy. The Atlantic Chapter covers NYS and has 37,500 members. The Chapter is part of the national Sierra Club. The national Sierra Club has a long history of speaking out about the problems with nuclear energy. These problems include the intractable problem of nuclear waste, the record of serious accidents both in the U.S. and other countries, the possibility of a terrorist attack on a nuclear facility, the prohibitive cost of nuclear energy that is subsidized with our taxes while renewable forms of energy receive relatively little governmental assistance.

The nuclear power plant in question before us today, FitzPatrick, has all these problems plus additional ones. It is a G.E. Mark 1 boiling water reactor, the same as those which failed at Fukushima – with disastrous consequences. There are several other such facilities in the U.S. but FitzPatrick has the additional drawback of being the only one which has not followed the long-standing advice of the NRC to install a hardened vent. The existing venting system is woefully inadequate. In an accident, it’s so-called solution is to release radioactivity at ground level into the environment. FitzPatrick should NOT be put into the same category as the other Mark 1 reactors in terms of license renewal until 2016 as it is the only one without the hardene vent.

More than 900,000 people live within 50 miles of FitzPatrick.
Syracuse is only 36 miles away from FitzPatrick. As someone who lives just outside Syracuse, I feel personally threatened. And I worry for all living things that would be faced with dangerous doses of radioactivity. Our area has farmland and beautiful natural areas. We have Lake Ontario – one of the largest bodies of fresh water in the U.S. I don’t understand how Entergy’s interest in saving a relatively small amount of money by refusing to install a hardened vent can be weighed against the economic, health and environmental disaster that a serious accident or terrorist attack would entail. The Atlantic Chapter of the Sierra Club asks that the NRC regard our safety as more important than Entergy’s bottom line.

Linda A. DeStefano
member of the Energy Committee
Atlantic Chapter of the Sierra Club
New York State

False Reassurances

The Chemical and Nuclear age have nothing to do with our 40% lifetime chance
of getting cancer. (Paraphrased)

This is how David Brenner, PhD, of the The Center for Radiological Research at Columbia, answered my question on at a talk on “The Many Ways Radiation Affects our Lives”. The talk was held at Hofstra College on Dec. 1st, 2011.

I formulated my question after Dr. Brenner quizzed the audience on if we knew what our lifetime chances of getting cancer was. After a few guesses that were on the low side, he informed us we all had a 40% chance of getting cancer during our lifetime. I asked “In the 1950s, chemicals in our environment, food, and personal products became widespread, at the same time US nuclear testing released the equivalent in radiation of 18,000- 29,000 Hiroshimas. Within 10 years cancer rates began escalating towards the epidemic rates they are at today.
Do you disagree?”

The Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP) is a nonprofit educational and scientific organization, started by scientists and physicians. It is dedicated to understanding the relationships between low-level, nuclear radiation and public health. From their website:

“During the first half century of the Nuclear Age a growing body of medical and scientific evidence has emerged to demonstrate a probable causal link between low-level internal radiation from the ingestion of man-made fission products and world-wide increases in immune deficiency diseases, especially cancer and those affecting the newborn. RPHP has assembled much of the epidemiological evidence documenting these links.”

“Five books published by RPHP research associates summarize hundreds of articles in peer-reviewed journals dealing with these impacts of ingested, low-level fission products–products which did not exist in nature prior to the Nuclear Age. In addition to the effects upon the immune response of all age groups, the very young have been especially affected. RPHP has repeatedly pointed out the radiation-induced damage apparent in official vital statistics, tracing changes in infant mortality rates and underweight live births in the postwar period, especially during the above ground nuclear test years of the 1950s and the 1960s.”

“RPHP has also been able to track the radiation-induced damage done to the hormonal and immune systems of the 80 million baby boomers born between 1945 and 1965 in each of the post war decades, revealing the various epidemiological anomalies: In the 1950s, children born after the enormous initial exposure to nuclear fission products began to experience epidemic increases in childhood cancer in the ages 5 to 9.

Even the National Cancer Institute (NCI) states that although cancer incidence has declined somewhat since the year 2000 (smoking declined during the last decade as well) childhood cancer has been on the rise for the last decade. I would have liked to ask Dr. Brenner what could possibly have caused that if not contact with toxic substances the environment either before or after birth.

I assume he was ignorant of the fact that even the National Cancer Institute has declared that diet and lifestyle changes can reduce one’s risk by 75%. He might have pointed this out rather than scare us all with the 40% statistic.

He completely ignored the subject of internal exposure through contaminated water or food. When questioned, he did admit they have no data on this, so he did not address it.

Women are 40% More Likely to get Cancer from Radiation than Men

It is well known that children are very sensitive to radiation, with results ranging from birth defects, leukemia and lower IQ. What has been covered up is the high risk women face. The difference between external radiation, upon which the IAEA model is based, and radioactive particles that are ingested, through breathing or eating, is not even looked at.

Here some highlights from the NIRS briefing paper:

“The fact that this information has not been widely reported has deprived women of our right to know about this threat and protect ourselves from this harm. In addition to the ‘right to know,’ women have the right to protection. The U.S. Constitution guarantees “equal protection under the law.” International “allowable” radiation levels do not reflect disproportionate harm to women – or the extent to which they say they do, they are not protective.”

“In the U.S. it may be necessary to depart from the international radiation regime in order to deliver constitutional rights to the more than 150 million females in the United States.”

“Further, this situation violates the Right to Free Prior and Informed Consent as recognized throughout the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other international human rights instruments, norms and standards;5 particularly Article 19:States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.
To our knowledge, no women, indigenous or otherwise, have given ‘informed consent’ to a striking lack of protection from ionizing radiation.”

“The world’s radiation standards were originally developed to allow exposure rather than to prevent it. This makes sense given the historical context: the need for such regulation arose in the early 20th Century when exposure to human-concentrated or human-generated radioactivity was rare. The Manhattan Project, the all-out national effort to develop the first atomic bombs, was one of the original “drivers” pushing the development of “permissible” radiation exposure levels. It is also the origin of assuming the individual receiving a radiation dose is a male–a Manhattan Project worker. With the advent of nuclear energy and the facilities that produce nuclear fuel and handle waste, these standards have become evermore generalized to a larger and larger public.”

“The current limits for most industrial radiation in the U.S. allow fatal cancer among members of the general public at a rate that is between 300–3000 times higher than the legal rate of harm from most other industrial hazards.”

“A hazardous industry has traditionally been defined as one that causes cancer in one individual in a million. The Environmental Protection Agency’s goals for clean-up of contamination on industrial Super Fund sites is a risk of one in a million exposed getting cancer, with exceptions down to 1 cancer in 10,000 people exposed. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission now “allows” radiation levels to the general public that it projects would result in 1 fatal cancer in every 286 people (well, actually, adult men) exposed over a lifetime. However, this is “apples” compared to “oranges.” EPA regulations reference cancer incidence. NRC references deaths; if non-fatal cancers were included by NRC, the comparison would be even “worse.” We are less protected by NRC radiation standards than the regulation of other toxic hazards by EPA.”

“The NRC limit of 100 millirems a year is comparable to the NAS 100 millirad study level. NRC’s risk assessment of 1 fatal cancer in every 286 exposed does not reflect the NAS findings that radiation at this level to women results in 1 fatal cancer in every 201 women. The NRC equation underestimates the risk to women by nearly 40%. Since NRC does not differentiate between men and women in its regulations, it does not regulate to specifically protect women. Thus women are not equally protected where such standards are in place.”

Read the entire paper at: NIRS

Solar Energy is Far From Over

News reports have depicted Solyndra’s bankruptcy as the end of solar power in the U.S. Coming to this conclusion without any kind of analysis is ridiculous. All growing technologies have their growing pains.

The Vote Solar Initiative puts it this way: “[it is] like saying there is no future for the internet because Netscape went out of business.” The same could be said for the early days of electricity, computers and cars. All of these industries had their failed companies, yet the industry went on to great success.Reports of Solar’s Death are greatly exaggerated.

Hurricane approaches: 20 Reactors are in the path

Reuters has reported that 20 nuclear reactors are in danger. See complete list

From south to north Beyond Nuclear recommends that the following reactors be shut down:

  • Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 near Miami, FL
  • St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 on Florida’s central Atlantic coast
  • Brunswick Units 1 and 2 in North Carolina
  • Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2 on the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland
  • Salem Units 1 and 2, as well as Hope Creek, located just off the Delaware Bay
  • Hope Creek, located just off the Delaware Bay
  • Oyster Creek, New Jersey
  • Millstone Units 2 and 3 on Long Island Sound in Connecticut
  • Pilgrim in Massachusetts
  • Seabrook in New Hampshire

In addition many other reactors, just inland, are also at risk from Hurricane Irene. The electrical grid could be damaged by high winds, this could force nuclear power plants onto emergency generators, known to have a high failure rate.

US Government decided to downplay Fukushima radiation

Government agreed to downplay Fukushima radiation 
 Solar IMG Podcast 

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 straw, 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.”

Contact Gundersen through Fairwinds for further instructions about helping with the research:     See ENENEWS Energy News for regular radiation updates from Fukushima and United States nuclear power plants.