Michael Penn | Juneau Empire Larry Hartig, Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, speaks to the Senate Resources Committee at the Capitol on Wednesday. Hartig gave an overview of the department and also voiced Alaska concerns with the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.

Michael Penn | Juneau Empire
Larry Hartig, Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, speaks to the Senate Resources Committee at the Capitol on Wednesday.

by Jennifer Canfield / Juneau Empire / January 23, 2014 /

The Department of Environmental Conservation isn’t actively testing fish for radiation, Commissioner Larry Hartig told the Senate Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday.

A radiation leak from a nuclear power plant in Japan after a March 2011 earthquake and subsequent tsunami continues to worry some about whether it’s safe to eat fish from the Pacific Ocean, but Hartig said those concerns are unfounded.

Hartig said the state is relying on data and analyses from other coastal states, British Columbia and federal agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency to determine the safety of Alaska’s fish.

CONTINUE READING

Did you like this? Share it:
By Corbett| 5 Comments | News

5 comments

  1. Very interesting….Washington State fisheries claims to be monitoring for radiation but when I made a few phone calls nobody knew who was doing the monitoring not even Washington State Radiation Control so I called several of the State Hatcheries and none of them had a clue but thought it was a good idea and none even had a Geiger counter or been told to do any form of monitoring.

    Your Government at work….again.

  2. Mr Hartig appears to be using and applying the same “logic”/faith that is used when asking “Does my arse look fat in this dress?” Relying on someone else to validate what is apparent (fat arse or not), is abrogating self-responsibility. Clearly, here is a man who will not (or can not), ascertain facts for himself…. and given his official position, all he has achieved with this statement is the obvious – he is an arse and he is not the man for the job.

    It’s deplorable the amount of “officials” that simply ignore the demands of those who they supposedly represent, ie: the people, and obfuscate, deny or ignore the data pertaining to that which they are supposed to be acting as custodians of (in this case “the conservation of the environment”…. not a small thing!).

    Thankfully, with specific reference to Fukushima and all things nuclear, there are people who are searching for data, taking the data seriously AND who are trying desperately to make sense of it and disseminate their findings so that the rest of us can have some hope of knowing the truth. (eg: Roger Foote – on this site).

    I don’t really know if this site is helpful – if anyone knows more please advise:

    http://www.netc.com/

    • @Scottiegirl – I think the owner of http://www.netc.com posts over at Enenews, in their “Post Your Radiation Monitoring Data Here” forum. You can scroll through the link to read comments about NETC or email the owner with any questions:

      http://enenews.com/forum-post-radiation-monitoring-data-april-30-2012-present

      • Dear Grim – Thankyou! Despite not truly understanding the data, it’s a comfort just knowing that people are watching and recording and genuinely trying to help.

  3. If indeed anyone was monitoring this data, would it not make sense to have a central clearing house on the internet for the raw data? This would help allay the fears of some and allow those with knowledge of radiation and basic particle physics to examine it and explain it to those who don’t know what they are looking at. The absence of such public data, therefore, screams to the rest of us that it does not exist. Either we are being lied to and they are not monitoring it, or they ARE monitoring it and the data does not fit their narrative so it is being withheld from the public.

    If you are an official and are reading this, here is what needs to be available: Where and when was the sample taken? What equipment was used to test it (be specific as to what brand and model was used)? What data was obtained in terms of Bq/kg, Sieverts, etc? What does the trend look like over time versus other samples? Given this data we the public can then do our own research and make an informed decision. Without it all you will get is continued speculation and rumors. If the situation is really as good as you say it is then you should have no problem providing us with the raw data that proves your point.

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*