Government research shows Fukushima radiation spike over southwestern British Columbia in 2011

A study by several researchers, including Health Canada monitoring specialist Ian Hoffman, reveals a sharp spike in radiation over southwest B.C. on March 20, 2011.


That was nine days after a devastating earthquake hit Japan, triggering a nuclear disaster at the Fukushima power plant.

Hoffman and the other researchers (Environment Canada's Alain Malo, Jean-Philippe Gauthier, and Gilles Mercier, and graduate student Réal D'Amours) relied on the Canadian Meteorological Centre's dispersion model to track the arrival of the radioactive plume in B.C.

With sampling conducted every 15 minutes, they concluded there are "small scale/sharp features in the plume even after several days of travel times".

A PowerPoint presentation declares that several studies already exist concerning the release of radiation from the crippled power-plant in Japan.

"The Fukushima plume provided nice opportunities to test radioactivity detection capabilities," The PowerPoint presentation states.

In 2011, investigative journalist Alex Roslin reported in the Georgia Straight that a Health Canada monitoring station in Sidney had detected radioactive iodine-131 levels up to 300 times normal background levels.

In 2011, Health Canada was declaring on its website that the quantities of radiation reaching Canada did not pose any health risk to Canadians.

"The very slight increases in radiation across the country have been smaller than the normal day-to-day fluctuations from background radiation," Health Canada said at the time.

Roslin maintained in his article that Health Canada's own data contradicted that assertion. Below, you can see more of what the researchers stated in the PowerPoint presentation about the radiation plume.

Comments (42) Add New Comment
Dody Baldandorj
they should stop covering up all this.
Rating: +34
Dody Baldandorj
They should stop covering up. Handling all this via local
power plant 1960s style it is insane
Rating: +23
Here is a very informative video on Fukushima:
Rating: -1
Noticing this more and more lately I will read some news or study posted by EneNews that no one knew about then after that it starts to show up on sites that talk Fukushima every so often and they never give credit to where they got the info. From Monday -
Rating: +1
Dudes and Dudettes! The radiation levels never even blipped beyond background levels despite these shocking graphs. How is it these miniscule, radioactive particulate matter is expected to cause some human disaster? Call me when it's a catastrophe...
Rating: -41

Since Iodine-131 is particularly harmful to children's thyroid glands, did 'Health Canada' give a warning to parents to keep their children indoors during the peak Iodine-131 levels found in Canada?

The answer is no.

Therefore, isn't 'Health Canada' guilty of negligence or criminality?

Rating: +39
Keep digging, Mr Smith. As someone may have mentioned a couple years ago. Thanks for the update. More to come?
Rating: +11
400 ppm

Where did you get this myth that Health Canada, or any other gov't agency, exists for the masses when it's there for the owners of Canada?
Rating: +10
2011 News...
did it really take 2 years for this article to be published, this is old news and a pretty weak article.
Rating: -20
Add to that ALL the Pollution that blows our way via Sea and Air from Asia, Communist China, Commie Vietnam & Commie Russia :)
Rating: -8

They did say the information was by Health Canada and Canadian Association of Management Consultants.

Shill perhaps?
Rating: -9
Hiroshi Suzuki
Japan's Major Newspapers Have Timely "Scoops" on Japan Government "Suppression" of Information on Nuclear Issues After the Fukushima Accident

It has been revealed that Japan Cabinet Office complied the report that denied the significance of "Chernobyl Act", which was established to support the victims after the Chernobyl accident.

While the "Chernobyl Act" confers the right to relocate [to residents] in the areas with annual radiation exposure exceeding 1 mSv and the obligation to relocate in the areas with annual radiation exposure exceeding 5 mSv,

the report denies the significance of the "Chernobyl Act" by saying
"(Designation of the areas) are too strict", and citing testimonies such as "there is no benefit that justifies the enormous cost".
Rating: +5
No disaster? Most men over 45 have under active thyroids due to above ground atomic weapons testing in the 50's and 60's. The Accumulative effects of this will kill in the hundreds of thousands. So just because some with blinders feel that there are no bodies in the street, it doesn't mean that Fukishima is a game changer.

Rating: +2
To make matters worse the Guardian reports "Whistleblowers and journalists in Japan could soon find themselves facing long spells in prison for divulging and reporting state secrets, possibly including sensitive information about the Fukushima nuclear disaster..."
Rating: +17
Both Health Canada and the EPA are liars, they said there would no health concerns and there are. Not only is there the cesium and strontium and tritium and iodine that they talk about, there was (and I have to assume Is Still, as the liars wont tell us the truth) plutonium, neptunium and other Really tasty particles falling here.
There is No safe level of radiation, thats a lie as well that peer-reviewed studies have proven and most of the particles we talk about (that have fallen here, like plutonium, by the liars own numbers before the coverup started) will be around FOREVER, or until it is ingested by something. Then that hot particle will be temporarily interned in a body until that being dies, usually within 5-20 years and then if they/it is cremated that particle goes right back into the environment to start the cancer or death cycle all over again.
There have been thousands of health effects already in the US (Do You have any?), infant mortality is up 35% nationwide, more in many places along west coast, we are already seeing cesium heart attacks in young healthy people, increased hypo-thyroidism in infants, and best to not even talk about the awful health effects the children of japan are facing, and being subjected to by their traitorous "government" or we might go to prison now.
But those are just the first wave, look at chernobyl health effects, and realize fuku is much much worse. Dont take my word for it, research it yourself, but dont listen to anyone in the US or canada, they are all funded or owned by nuclear...look at overseas research papers, they dont have to lie.
Both our "governments", if we can call them that, have stopped testing milk and fish except for every 90 days, and even then they say its fine, even though we used to have a formula for how much irradiated fish you eat until you get cancer, and sure its over that old level by a lot but now we're pretty sure its fine, eat up.
To say nothing of the death of the pacific (oh, whoops, shhh, no one is supposed to know yet), the many intelligent species that are trying to flee the open ocean, coming up and begging for help, but we're too stupid to help ourselves, much less them.
Strange diseases all over, mass fish die-offs, including freshwater fish, mass bird deaths, strange fog formations (tritium makes fog)...
So yeah, just keep drinking the kool-aid, everything is fine.
Rating: +25
any comment on what is considered normal levels of radiation exposure or at what level does it become dangerous..? seems slightly relevant to the article.

either the reporter is lazy or he wants to push a certain agenda onto the reader
Rating: +11
Eva van Loon
Stand up on your own two feet and buy a radiation monitor! Measure whatever you're thinking of ingesting and give yourself a little peace of mind.
True, this is the most dangerous moment in history.
True, having children on the west coast of North America is now risky business.
True, we have only a minor chance of healthy survival, along with the rest of the ecology that our wretched species is killing off.
True, we may all die horrible helpless deaths within weeks of a further accident at Fuku.
Yes, it is unbelievable that those words can be written and are the truth.
The question is, what are you doing to help some of us mammals survive? Stop whining and moaning and start taking action!
Rating: +3
What are considered "normal" levels of radiation are adjusted regularly to reflect the anthropomorphic background radiation "du jour". Also ignored is our body's ability to excrete naturally occurring radioactive particles such as potassium, while the man made particles remain in our bodies irradiating nearby cells at much higher dosages than an individual cell would get from an external source.

What is safe? NO level of radiation is safe. In fact, recent studies have indicated that low doses are even more dangerous (per unit of dosage) than higher dosages, with substantially greater effects than would have been expected from a linear model. Which leaves the question, what is considered "safe"? Sadly, the answer to that is whatever dosage the general receiving is considered safe by our government. The response to elevated levels of isotopes in Pacific fish was to raise the acceptable levels; I believe the US now allows 100 times what the rest of the world ( and the US formerly) considered acceptable. And, just as occurred after Chernobyl, the government refuses to test imports so anything that does not meet the standards of the rest of the world is sold in the US.

An anecdote: My uncle worked for Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. A few days after Chernobyl, all the radiation alarms went off. The area was evacuated and teams tried to find the source of the leakage. Eventually they realized that the background radiation now exceeded the thresholds for the alarms. The alarm thresholds were simply adjusted upwards, people called back to work, and no mention made to the press.

That is how our governments regulate radiation. The acceptable level of radiation is about ten times the actual exposure, whatever that exposure may be. If the exposure increases, what is considered "acceptable" is just adjusted upwards to reflect the new level of exposure. Sad but true. There has been complete capture of the regulatory agencies by the nuclear industry, and actual regulation is off the table. All that matters is that there is a public perception that nuclear energy is safe.
Rating: +9
From the first graph, the peak dose rate observed was about 0.5 nanograys/hour. Integrating (very roughly) over the seven-day event, the total dose was, say, 25–30 nanograys. As the isotopes in question are all intermediate-mass fission fragments that decay by beta-gamma emission, the conversion factor for the equivalent dose – that is, the dose rate when correcting for damage due to different types of radiation – is 1, meaning that this would correspond to an equivalent dose of 25–30 nanosieverts. The normal background dose due primarily to naturally occurring radiation in Vancouver is about 5 millisieverts. The result:

This entire event corresponds to about one-two-hundredth of the normal background dose.

It's of scientific interest and little more. It does not represent a health threat, despite the alarmist rhetoric with which it's presented, and Health Canada's statements regarding the potential health impact are hardly contradicted by data. Indeed, they follow from the data.
Rating: -2
ACMESalesRep- if the doses were too low to make a difference, what about the increase in thyroid problems in children along the west coast?
Rating: +4


Add new comment
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.