RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Boardman writes: "The first thing to know about the danger from the radioactive mass remaining in the three reactors that melted down at Fukushima is that nobody knows how much radioactive material there is."

A satellite image of Japan showing damage after an Earthquake and Tsunami at the Dai Ichi Power Plant, Japan. (photo: DigitalGlobe)
A satellite image of Japan showing damage after an Earthquake and Tsunami at the Dai Ichi Power Plant, Japan. (photo: DigitalGlobe)

Fukushima Continues

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

07 July 13


More than two years after the initial meltdowns, Fukushima is still SNAFU

he first thing to know about the danger from the radioactive mass remaining in the three reactors that melted down at Fukushima is that nobody knows how much radioactive material there is, nobody knows how much uranium and plutonium it contains, and nobody knows how to make it safe – so no one knows how great the continuing danger is.

In order to prevent nuclear material from being diverted to use in weapons, the International Atomic Energy Agency of the U.N. requires each country to report regularly on the volume of nuclear materials in its nuclear power plants. At Fukushima, this is currently impossible.

Diversion of this material to weapons use is not a problem at the moment, since the level of radioactivity is high enough to kill anyone who comes close to it, which is why it hasn't been moved. On the other hand, it is necessary to move it in order to measure it, and even if it were movable now, the technology to measure it does not yet exist.

Cooling the Cores Keeps Them from Burning, but Creates Radioactive Water

The Japanese Atomic Energy Agency has joined with the U.S. to develop the necessary new technology, which it hopes to begin using within a decade. The Japanese agency calls this collaboration the "world's first" attempt at such technology, since a similar U.S. initiative to measure the melted core from the 1979 Three Mile Island accident failed.

As long as Fukushima Daiichi's owner, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), keeps the three melted cores and the fuel rods in three other storage pools sufficiently submerged in cooling water, the radioactive material will not overheat, burn, and spew radioactive debris as far as wind or water might take it.

Watertight fuel pools are used effectively at nuclear power plants around the world, including Fukushima before the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami. Now the reactor structures are no longer watertight and TEPCO has pumped millions of gallons of fresh and "least contaminated" into the structures since then, and continues to do so.

Radioactive Water Is Dangerous, and It Has to Go Somewhere

Water used to cool nuclear fuel and waste becomes radioactive itself, as does the groundwater that infiltrates the structures. This radioactive water continues to reach the Pacific Ocean in varying quantities, as TEPCO attempts to keep it in check.

The Japan Times reported that, as of May 7, TEPCO had installed 290 huge storage talks at Fukushima to hold more than 78 million gallons (290,000 tons) of radioactive water, with another 25 million gallons still uncollected. Fukushima is generating an estimated 100,000-plus gallons (400 tons) of radioactive water every day.

TEPCO estimates that groundwater is entering the complex at a rate of at least 54,000 gallons per day. In May 2012, the Japanese government ordered TEPCO to build a wall deep into the ground around the plant to keep groundwater out, a plan that might become operational by early 2015.

TEPCO is expanding its storage capacity to about 1.9 billion gallons by clearing forest and other areas around the compound. While this would probably suffice for another three years, the site is running out of storage space. Additionally, some of the storage tanks have begun to leak and contaminated water is leaking into the soil.

In the Nuclear Business, Truth Has a Limited Half-Life

To address these difficulties, TEPCO is proposing to treat its radioactive water to remove some of the radioactivity, and then release the rest into the Pacific Ocean. There is local opposition to this plan, especially from fishermen.

In July 2012, as some officials were assuring the public that fish from the Pacific were safe to eat, the Japan Fisheries Agency compiled statistics showing the opposite. As reported by a Canadian web site, Vancouver's

The numbers show that far from dissipating with time, as government officials and scientists in Canada and elsewhere claimed they would, levels of radiation from Fukushima have stayed stubbornly high in fish.
In June 2012, the average contaminated fish catch had 65 becquerels of cesium per kilo. That's much higher than the average of five Bq/kg found in the days after the accident back in March 2011, before cesium from Fukushima had spread widely through the region's food chain. In some species, radiation levels are actually higher this year than last.

What We Know Is Dwarfed by What We Don't Know About Radioactivity

In March 2013, researchers from Stanford University's Hopkins Marine Station issued a report on Bluefin tuna caught off the California coast and tested for radioactive cesium. The report found that Bluefin tuna were 100 per cent contaminated, that not one was cesium-free. The report did not address such questions as whether cesium would continue to accumulate in tuna or whether it was appearing in other fish species.

The important aspect of this research, according to the Stanford News, was that: "The work supports the idea that the Fukushima radioisotopes can be used to reliably determine the previously unknown trans-oceanic movements of juvenile Pacific bluefin tuna. This information could be used to prevent tuna from being overfished."

Would You Like a Side of Hot Seaweed With Your Hot Tuna?

Reporting on the same information, the Two Rivers Tribune in northern California noted:

On the coast of California, there is a deep sea kelp forest at Corona del Mar that now contains concentrations of radiation that are 250 times higher than levels found in kelp prior to the Japanese nuclear accidents. A research article published in Scientific American reports that radiation accumulated in fish that ate near the kelp…. Presently, there is no research as to what is the exact effect on fish and their offspring will be from the increased levels of radiation that are being found….
The Japanese government has banned both the domestic sale and international export of most fish that are caught off the Fukushima coast. Radiation levels are still rising two years after the nuclear accidents. In January of 2013 the tested levels of cesium were about 2,540 times what is considered safe for human consumption. Strontium levels are 240 times the legal limit.

It's Not a Cover-up If Governments Gather No Useful Information, Is It?

Apparently there is no comprehensive, Fukushima-related radiation testing being carried on by the U.S., Canadian, or other governments whose people are directly affected. Nor is there any international body publicly performing this work.

The Global Monitoring Division of the Earth System Research Laboratory of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce monitors global levels of "carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, nitrous oxide, surface and stratospheric ozone, halogenated compounds including CFC replacements, hydrocarbons, sulfur gases, aerosols, and solar and infrared radiation."

Worldwide nuclear weapons programs and nuclear power generation add ionizing radiation to the atmosphere continuously. NOAA's web site offers five different safety programs related to ionizing radiation. But if NOAA (or any other government entity) is measuring ionizing radiation in the atmosphere, that information is not easily found.

What if "National Security" Depends on Citizens' Insecurity?

Search the NOAA web site for strontium-90 or cesium-137 (one of the more common and more serious products of the Fukushima meltdowns with a half-life of 30 years) and there is one result, which begins promisingly:

The Environmental Measurements Laboratory (EML) has maintained a global network of deposition sampling sites for nearly 40 years. Through CMDL support, American Samoa (SMO) and Mauna Loa (MLO) have been a part of this network for many years. This network was initiated to investigate the transport and fate of radioactivity produced from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. Strontium-90 was the radionuclide of primary interest due to the relatively high quantity released and its physical and chemical properties that made it a concern to human health.

But this posting dates from 1996 and includes no data later than 1996.

Radiation Dose So Far Not Harmful, U.N. says – But It's Not Over Yet

In February the World Health Organization (WHO) of the U.N. released an almost 200-page assessment of the health risks from the Fukushima disaster, "the first-ever analysis of global health effects due to radiation exposure" from Fukushima. In a press release issued in Geneva, WHO concluded that "for the general population inside and outside of Japan, the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated."

Using preliminary dose estimation data to make its predictions, the WHO report also found "that the estimated risk for specific cancers in certain subsets of the population in Fukushima Prefecture has increased and, as such, it calls for long term continued monitoring and health screening for those people."

The release quotes Dr. Angelika Tritscher, acting director for WHO's Food Safety and Zoonosis Department, saying that: "In addition to strengthening medical support and services, continued environmental monitoring, in particular of food and water supplies, backed by the enforcement of existing regulations, is required to reduce potential radiation exposure in the future."

And the WHO report notes that "the psychosocial impact [on Fukushima] may have a consequence on health and well-being. These should not be ignored as part of the overall response."

If decommissioning of Fukushima ever starts, it will take decades.

According to Natural News reporter Ethan Huff, the lack of reliable information – at least in Japan – may be less the fault of government than mainstream media:

New data released by Japan's Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW) shows once again that the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster is far from over. Despite a complete media blackout on the current situation, levels of Cesium-137 (Cs-137) and Cesium-134 (Cs-134) found in produce and rice crackers located roughly 225 miles (~ 362 km) away from Fukushima are high enough to cause residents to exceed the annual radiation exposure limit in just a few months, or even weeks.

According to, which posts up-to-date information about the Fukushima disaster, "rice crackers and tangerines produced in the Shizuoka prefecture are testing high for both Cs-137 and Cs-134."

Meanwhile in recent weeks, TEPCO reportedly dumped contaminated groundwater into the Pacific, then announced that radiation levels in the seawater near Fukushima had reached record levels, probably because the radioactive water "leaked."

At the Fukushima site, Energy News reports, workers are expecting the situation with all four reactors to get worse. While there are somewhat credible contingency plans for three of the reactors, the fourth – reactor #2 – has radiation levels that are already so intense, one worker said, that in an emergency, "a prepared squad is likely to perish before it accomplishes its mission."

Another said, "We are clueless about reactor #2." your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+29 # ER444 2013-07-07 13:12
I stopped buying fish from the Pacific one year ago. No Alaskan salmon for me, California tuna, no thanks. Atlantic fish and from the North Sea are still ok( until the next oil spill). BTW I also avoid the Pangasius from Vietnam.. an antibiotic cocktail. Apparently Talapia from Indonesia is a safe choice and is strictly controlled. What a world.
+18 # Carol R 2013-07-07 15:00
Beware of Atlantic farm raised fish. It is full of toxins. I've read that farm raised fish is grey in color and needs to be dyed to look like 'salmon'.

Be very aware of eating 'salmon' that has been dyed. I've seen it for sale in my grocery stores.
+3 # Billy Bob 2013-07-09 09:21
Other than algae and squid, farm raised seafood may soon be all there is left.
+10 # Pickwicky 2013-07-07 15:14
ER444--How do you find out where fish is from--especiall y when canned? I could find no such info on my cans of Tuna.
+3 # Billy Bob 2013-07-09 09:22
You can't. Even people who think they can often don't realize they're being lied to.
+22 # barkingcarpet 2013-07-07 17:21
So, we are not buying or eating fish.
Yes. Great. BUT, and....
Are we still just ignorant blind consumers, thinking about the next purchase?
More to the point folks....
What ARE ARE ARE ARE ARE ARE we doing to ensure our messes (and yes folks they ARE our messes) are being cleaned up, and WHAT WHAT WHAT are WE doing to ensure a sane just system of governance and policy? What are WE doing, individually and collectively to ensure a planet worth living on for ANYTHINGS future?
Shame on all of us. We are the problem, more that the corrupt and insane thugs feeding us B.S.
We create our world with every flip of the switch, with every turn of the key, and with every waking dollar spent, we invest in the future.
Just what are we giving back? Just what are we willing to sacrifice for anythings future folks?
Look around, and act. Nature cares not for our insane rules of money, and laws of Human empire.
Not on my watch. At least not willingly.
+17 # EternalTruth 2013-07-07 21:28
Barking Carpet said:
"What ARE ARE ARE ARE ARE ARE we doing to ensure our messes (and yes folks they ARE our messes) are being cleaned up,"

Uh...Mostly I'm just watching in Awe, like a motorist creeping past a particularly gruesome car accident, as we destroy ourselves and a good part of the rest of the planet. I figure its already too late (not that we should stop trying fix it). The sea is poisoned so we can't eat the fish or sea vegetables. The land is poisoned so we can't eat the rice and who knows what else. The f'ing sunshine is toxic, so we have to protect ourselves from it, and pay for supplements to get the nutrition we used to get from "clean" sunlight. We're making mutant produce, which I have no doubt will cause significant health problems down the line, and threatens to contaminate our unmutated seed. We're pumping carbon into the atmosphere as fast as we can despite the fact virtually everyone who honestly and intelligently studies the issue says its destroying the planet. And all that's just the tip of the (melting) iceberg. What can I do? Write letters to corrupt reps who don't give a damn? Vote for people who would do the right thing if elected, but don't have a chance because the general population's never heard of them, and even if they did get the most votes, the fix is in anyway? Should I orphan my children in an attempt to overthrow the powers that be? Even if successful, could we reverse the devastation we've already wrought? (Cont.)
+16 # EternalTruth 2013-07-07 21:50
Frankly, I think at this point our best hope for for saving the planet are "new age" ideas about raising our collective consciousness and vibrational levels. Start meditating, stop shopping, stop driving. Get in touch with the Source inside, and send your divine love for all of existence out into the world to overcome the evil. And work to create a conscious community around you. Half the time I don't know if I believe the things I just wrote, but even then it seems like its worth a shot. It's better than doing nothing, and better than doing things which I believe couldn't possibly solve the problem.
+7 # Pickwicky 2013-07-08 14:04
EternalTruth--I was with you there for awhile, but you lost me with the beads and rattles. Sitting on our cans meditating is as useful as cooling our butts in a prayer circle. Get out and work to accomplish what needs to be done. One way to start: eschew all sponsors of Limbaugh, Hannity, and all radio goofs who preach Climate Change is a hoax. Limit your consumption of electricity, gasoline, and water. Vote for Senators and Congressmen who have good records on environmental issue and aren't beholding to Big Oil. Everyone can do these things.
+2 # EternalTruth 2013-07-08 14:51
I hear ya. Like I said, I'm ambiguous myself on the "beads and rattles". The thing is, I feel so much better when I believe it. I wish I could believe it 100% because I'd sure be a lot happier and more hopeful that way. As you can see from my rant, I'm far more cynical than hopeful. But I have more hope in meditation, and the raising of consciousness, than in voting. I believe our votes in the US are every bit as capable of producing change, as votes in Iran. Instead of the guardian council choosing our candidates, they are chosen by our corporate rulers via the corporate owned ruling parties, and the corporate-owned media. Next time a vote comes around, shake some beads, dude. It'll accomplish more.
+45 # indian weaver 2013-07-07 17:39
And the poisoning of the planet has only just begun. Consider how life will struggle in the decades ahead, as all these catastrophes we're causing start overlapping and becoming worse. The insidious creeping of these scattered atrocities we are causing against the living and inanimate will cover the earth in time. Hard to imagine any cosmic tragedy ever surpassing that of the humans' existence upon our Great Mother - our dear Mother whom we are killing out of greed and arrogance. The entire universe is gasping and wailing in horror at us.
+1 # 666 2013-07-08 19:18
a key point this article misses; toxins accumulate at the top of the food pyramid / apex predators (like tuna). It takes years for this to happen. as long as low-level pollutants continue to poison the food chain, the predators we eat are going to be deadly to us as well - for decades. I suspect only seafood from the south atlantic and indian oceans might be "safe".

Another point, the govt didn't do (aint doing) much testing after the gulf oil spills, they kept saying "it's all safe" -- while horribly mutated sea life keeps coming up in the nets (but that's why the can it now, aint it?).

it's nice to know govt is looking out for its consumers... "there, there, eat your [prole]feed, the truck is on it's way to take you to the slaughter house."

and lest you vegans advocate going meatless, i've got word for you too: neonicotinides!

between radition, global warming, pollution, corruption, war, famine, etc if you're lucky, you might live to see the end of the world....
+8 # MainStreetMentor 2013-07-08 05:13
The evidence is in front of us. Nuclear power is a killer, just waiting to pounce. Why, in the face of such unrefutable evidence, such as Fukishima, do we continue to allow nuclear power plants to be built? Existing ones need to be shut down. Elements of our government refuse to acknowlege global warming; prosecute rather than listen to "whistle-blower s; refuse to investigate and prosecute the criminals of Wall Street. We have GOT to come to our senses and legally rid our planet of these dangerous and devestating issues.
+2 # Rita Walpole Ague 2013-07-09 03:07
And, ER444, I also now avoid eating fish, especially shell fish (which I have, for years, loved, and do miss eating) from the Gulf and Chesapeake. This came from years of my cruising and having to avoid spilling of any oil/fuel whatsoever in the water (then Gulf had dreadful, could easily have been prevented oil spill).

Re. the Chesapeake, not long after the non-election of 'W' as Pres., a friend in the Annapolis area informed me of her dear friend, head litigator of the EPA, anguishing over her inability to enforce any EPA regs.. The good friend worried and then some re. health of Chesapeake and all who reside around it and in it (i.e. fish, crabs, etc.) Summer before last, when at a marina south of Annapolis, I saw the warning in the women's room: CAUTION - DO NOT DRINK THE TAP WATER. No big surprise.

Rumor has it that our villainaire rulers are happily anticipating huge profits from sale of harder and harder to find drinkable water. Could all ruination of water, via nuclear plant failure, fracking, tar sands Pipelines, purposefully set fires (numerous firefighters and cops have mentioned to me their concerns re. ongoing fires in Colorado not being accidental) be ways for our evil, greed and power addicted rulers to prep. for more $$$$$$ in their coffers via sale (at an incredible price) of drinkable and good irrigation water?
+17 # Anarchist 23 2013-07-07 18:24
I keep thinking about that book/movie 'On the Beach' and the death of the world through nuclear disaster. In that case the nuclear disaster was a war, but our way of life has long since been a war on Nature. Another movie and movie line comes to mind: Avatar when the hero says 'they killed their mother.' It really is like that.
+4 # Doll 2013-07-07 19:42
Oh. shit
+5 # Peakspecies 2013-07-07 19:56
As long as humans refuse to consider that there may be a connection between our innate feeling of joy, when we see cute infants, and we continue to explosively breed, then we will continue to drive all higher life forms into a near-term extinction, including ourselves. Our giant egos prevent us from seeing what our brilliant-selve s are bringing about.
+4 # Romi 2013-07-07 20:12
I do not trust this writer. He says things like, "Watertight fuel pools are used effectively at nuclear power plants around the world, including Fukushima before the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami," and "Radiation Dose So Far Not Harmful, U.N. says..."
Well, there is NO safe does of radiation, and nuclear power plants have been leaking radioactive water for DECADES.
+1 # WBoardman 2013-07-09 10:48
Sorry to hear about your distrust.

The comment about "watertight fuel pools"
still strikes me as a simple, non-controversi al
statement of a fact-for-the moment.
Pretty much every nuclear power plant has
a used fuel storage pool and, so far, they have held up.
That is not a prediction that they will continue to hold up,
nor is it an assertion that they are inherently safe --
they are not and that is widely known, whether the danger
comes from over-crowding, potential loss of coolant,
terrorist attack, or whatever.
And the same sentence you goes on to refer to the exception
of the no-longer-water tight pools at Fukushima, which did not fail for any inherent flaw, but because they were hit by natural disasters. [Yes, that leads to a whole other discussion of safety.]
+2 # WBoardman 2013-07-09 11:23
As for my quoting -- I thought skeptically, but you omitted "But It's Not Over Yet" when you quoted from my piece --
from the UN's World Health Organization, I would think
that's part of my job -- since what authorities say and do
actually matters, good or bad.

While I agree there is no inherently safe does of radiation,
there is also no way to avoid radiation from natural
background. So there's no all-or-nothing choice to be had
(or perhaps more accurately, the "all" choice would be
to reach levels of radiation the planet once knew, when
life here was not possible).

Radiation dosing is a subtle business at lower levels,
and I don't have a sophisticated scientific understanding of it,
but trust me (!), all I'm trying to do is get it reasonably
correct -- and that includes acknowledging the reality that
a parson may not live long enough for other reasons
for a low dose to have any serious effect.
+2 # Jack Gibson 2013-07-11 20:21
Oh, please, Boardman! People are dying from cancer(s) all around us, and it's increasing. And the U.N. and other governmental bodies and/or agencies lie all the time. Fukushima and what it continues to spew out, into the air and not just into the Pacific, is FAR worse than we're being told by the people you and most "Amerikans" stupidly trust! Everyone where I live thinks I'm crazy, and you probably will too, along with most blindly-trustin g readers here, because I wear a face mask EVERY TIME I go out, and I make certain that I rarely go outside anymore. I've worn the face mask since ten days after the Fukushima disaster, and I will continue to wear it, because the air is full of radioactive dust and precipitation moisture from Fukushima all across the U.S.; and, because TEPCO, et al., are doing little or nothing to contain the meltdowns, the radioactive byproducts from uranium AND PLUTONIUM, the latter the absolute worst, are continuing to constantly be released into the atmosphere and environment, and are making more and more dust particles and water radioactive, which is being blown, and is flowing, across the Pacific in huge amounts that hasn't abated in the over two years since the disaster.

I've been monitoring the pertinent websites that still monitor, most having been shutdown because of the lying claim that "there's no danger", and the background radiation levels continue to be two to three times higher than pre-3-11-2011, all over the U.S. and Canada.

- TBC -
0 # Jack Gibson 2013-07-11 21:41
All it takes is ONE MOLECULE of plutonium to GUARANTEE that people WILL, NOT MAY, get cancer(s); and cancer(s) so severe that they will very likely die from it and/or them, or from the opportunistic infections that they WILL get as a result of it; i.e./e.g., pneumonia, liver failure, heart failure, death from bacterial and/or viral infections, etc.

You, like most people, can continue to live in la-la-land and denial as much as you want, not take precautions as much as you can, and help whitewash this matter whether you consciously mean to or not; that's your free choice; but I will not do so. The sane thing to do is to rather be thought of as "crazy" and seek to preserve ourselves, than to not take precautions as much as we can, and die horrific deaths from cancer(s) and/or opportunistic infections.

Thousands of people in North America have already died as a result of Fukushima, and I reasonably predict that soon we're going to start seeing, if we haven't already, people dropping like flies from cancer(s) and/or opportunistic infections all over the country, especially among those who spend a lot of time outdoors, without masks, freely breathing the air (and particularly those who have allowed themselves to get wet from "being 'precipitated' upon", especially on a habitual basis), particularly all along the Pacific Coast and a few hundred miles inland.

So, Fukushima's aftermath is far from over; and, since very little is being done to contain it, it will continue.
+2 # Jack Gibson 2013-07-12 00:26
- Continued -

Are you and others fully putting two and two together? California is the "breadbasket" of the U.S., and eighty percent of produce comes from there. So what do you think is going to happen due to most "Amerikans" all across the country, and others, eating a great deal of that produce; most of which, other than hothouse-grown, is being heavilly inundated with radioactive dust and precipitation? [And eating nothing but "organic" produce from there, or from anywhere in the country for that matter, is not going to help; for, there is really no such thing as organic anymore (except from outside of the U.S. and Mexico), with all of it, minus the hothouse produce (depending upon where its irrigation is coming from), being so heavily beset with radiation.]

What I'm saying is that, as a result of the foregoing, we can't completely get away from exposure to the Fukushima radiation; but that does NOT mean that we shouldn't do all that we can to mitigate and lower our exposure, by taking precautions as much as we possibly can. And don't worry about people thinking "you're" 'crazy' because of "your" taking those precautions. "An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure", isn't that how the saying goes?

Wherefore, unless "you" and "your" loved one's want to die horrible deaths, please protect yourselves from the radiation as much as you can; and I wish all of nothing but the very best to everyone.
+7 # oakes721 2013-07-07 21:41
How MUCH poison have we released from Pandora's box? The formula is a simple one: It is the square root of ignorance multiplied by profiteers and divided by politics and need, then subtracting any exponential truths from sum of the concerned citizens.

Common Sense might remind us that poison is poison. The 'measurement' may be another diversion, another 'study' ~ another delay ~ whereas the distance of years of repeated procrastination s are proving deadly. Governments have spared no pretense in doing nothing to halt the production of more Pandora's boxes around the globe.
+6 # suziemama 2013-07-07 21:59
One disaster after another... I try to do what I can politically, but then grow my own fish and veggies in my backyard. I love wild pacific salmon and tuna, but I'm switching to tilapia raised through home aquaponics.
-2 # scottfin 2013-07-10 21:17
As to the comment about never buying Alaska Salmon, Salmon is a freshwater fish, and is perfectly safe. They do not live in the ocean.
+3 # elizweatherford 2013-07-10 22:03
This may be the last year to save seeds. Save and plant--that's the straight-up way to capture carbon and restore soils and hydrology. It's up to everyone, no matter where we live or how: make green things grow with our hands, our time, our resources.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.