Vancouver Aquarium Hiding Fukushima Radiation

An Open Letter To The Vancouver Aquarium
Jay Cullen’s Blatant Lack Of Transparency

From Richard Wilcox PhD

I just watched the video now on youtube featuring presentations by Ken Buessler and Jay Cullen regarding ocean radiation pollution from the Fukushima nuclear disaster:

In his introduction Jay Cullen did not reveal that the nuclear industry is one of the funding sources for his research. It is outrageous that the Board Chair for Meopar, the organization that oversees Cullen’s research on this issue, is also the president and CEO of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories:

This highly relevant fact was not revealed by Cullen in the introduction to his presentation, rather he bandied about a number of other supporters– some of whom I would suspect are bought-and-paid for greenwash environmental organizations controlled by big money interests– in order to put the public’s mind at ease that his research and conclusions are reliable.

For example, I found it interesting that Cullen can readily assume that starfish die-offs are unrelated to radiation since such die-offs have occurred before the Fukushima accident. Various ocean die-offs have occurred in the past for many different reasons, as part of natural cycles, etc., however, Cullen admits the die-offs this time are much worse. Surely the radiation in the ocean is not doing the immune systems of organisms any good. Are marine scientists now implying the radiation hormesis theory that radiation is actually good for you in small doses? This indicates to me that Cullen’s conclusions are possibly biased in favor of a predetermined outcome to further the goals of the Controlled Opposition.

Why is it that marine biologists need funding from the Nuclear Industry and yet these facts are not revealed for an important public presentation on ocean health, which is directly related to the enormity of the Fukushima nuclear disaster?

Science considers all factors before drawing a conclusion, but Cullen is apparently drawing his conclusions by excluding inconvenient factors that might expose the profoundly damaging criminal negligence of the nuclear industry. Since the funding of his research is not being openly revealed and vigorously discussed in such a fora as offered by your organization, critical thinkers should be skeptical of the conclusions presented.

For the Vancouver Aquarium to stage an event in the interest of disinterested science without revealing this important fact– that the Board Chair of the main organization overseeing the research of this issue represents the interests of the nuclear industry– casts doubt on the integrity of the data and conclusions presented by the participants.

If the Vancouver Aquarium is getting public funding the Canadian taxpayers should look into this matter and demand honesty and transparency from the institutions that are misleading them.

Thank you,
Richard Wilcox, Tokyo, Japan