I've handled uranium before, in chemistry class. It was a chalky yellow liquid, probably a suspension.
Why didn’t they inject hi-levels of uranium or strontium directly into your flesh?
Interestingly, UC Davis, where I got my PhD, ran a program for decades investigating the effects of radiation of different types on dogs. The program was discontinued in the early 1970s. The last dog used in the program, radioactive with strontium-90, died in the late 1970s at the ripe old age of 19.
You know you didn’t ingest radioactive materials with that scan, right?
I didn't need to ingest radioactive material, because it was injected directly into a vein in my foot. It was quite painful. I had about 740 MBq, or 20 mCi, or 1.5 mSv, of a gamma emitter injected, and the nuclear medicine clinic gave me a card to carry just in case I set off a radiation detector in the next couple of days.
Re the “unscientific speculation”, I was responding to the assertion that there have been “no die offs” with proof of die offs.
The unscientific speculation is not that there was a fish die-off, but that it occurred due to radiation from Fukushima, especially since at this point, any such radiation is negligible. No one disputes that there was a fish die-off, or even several die-offs. But the most likely explanation is an algae bloom. Many of those articles you linked attribute the fish kills to algae blooms. As for the fish kill off the coast of Vietnam, it is likely to be an algae bloom--although, given the area, it could be a toxic industrial spill. It is difficult to tell... the fish do not appear visibly marred, so the only way to know is by testing them and the water.
I make choices about whether or not I expose myself to a radiation source with the documented medical knowledge that doing so raises my risk of illness - if I handle a small amount for a brief time - it’s a small increased risk of illness. Therefore, I can’t applaud your decision to handle uranium unless you are talking about completely depleted (no longer radioactive) uranium - in which case your comment is irrelevant to this discussion. Fukushima is not presenting us with a choice for what kind of exposure, duration of exposure, environment of exposure (do we want radioactive waste in the ocean) etc.
Obviously, and I do mean obviously, you made a choice, after being advised of the risks, to use the less harmful short-lived isotopes commonly used in medicine. So patients who do so (like dental xray patients) decide that short, controlled exposure will contribute to health treatment with an assumed risk - cost benefit analysis. This entirely unrelated to Fukushima. No one is controlling dose, no one wanted dosage, the public never gave permission and if they knew the risks -they would flatly refuse, the “dosing” will continue uncontrolled and unmonitored with stronger toxic isotopes like uranium present and the public in the vicinity will inhale and ingest a variety of isotopes which will build up in their bodies. So in relation to the discussion of Fukushima - your medical usage is irrelevant.
The amount of radiation present in the ocean and in fish as a result of Fukushima is not negligible. Since we’ve never had 3 nuclear core meltdowns with fuel and byproducts being washed into the ocean before - it’s unscientific to make blanket statements about the safety and “negligible” impact. Having read extensively on this subject since it occurred, as well as Chernobyl and Downwinders, I now know to disregard those who sneer that it’s harmless. Exposure to radiation reduces immune systems so it’s important to keep an open mind when you hear that animals are dying at unprecedented levels from what is currently attributed to a disease but may later be determined to be supported by suppressed immunity. 3 nuclear power plant cores are loose in the environment and I think it is reasonable to discuss and review this new territory and potential impacts on the environment and health. Collecting information and discussing hypotheses is not unscientific.