Canadian Divers check 120 Miles of Coastline and almost everything is dead

The highest concentration of radiation by all models puts the Northwest as the place to be for plutonium fun. Add what this jackass did and maybe the death is due to soulless human bodies screwing up everything.


www.theguardian.com...

"A controversial American businessman dumped around 100 tonnes of iron sulphate into the Pacific Ocean as part of a geoengineering scheme off the west coast of Canada in July, a Guardian investigation can reveal."

What I cannot understand is why no one in this thread has mentioned this? It seems so many of the posters know everything there is to know, everything. My thinking here is those most adamant about the radiation being nothing are the one's who support this mans efforts and do not want it to be shown as a problem.

Anyone who has ever owned a salt water tank knows anything at all can kill everything; too much salt, not enough, too little air, not enough air related to salt related to what's in the tank and so on. Why is it so hard to believe something like the Fukushima death cocktail is enough to throw things off just enough? Why can't that be a possibility? Then again, I don't care as I'll be dead before the horrors of this thing show up, if you're in your twenties a life of hell is before you.

a reply to: Rezlooper Exactly, Canada and the west coast is the least of it. Relevant to "dead zones" and such, folks need look no farther than the Gulf of Mexico and Louisiana/Texas/Mississippi coastal areas. Talk about problems with the ocean and waterways! I have stopped eating fish, period!

Our oceans are inundated with problems from radiation, Corexit, other chemicals, oil spills and there are problems relevant to methane.

Not only oceans but other water ways are being affected too. Chemicals from agribusinesses being dumped into lakes, rivers and streams. I witnessed waste water from the fracking process being dumped into a stream out in a local woods. I reported it but couldn't/didn't get close to the offender for obvious reasons.

Of course, warming temperatures and over fishing can cause problems but the increasing amount of "dead zones" we are seeing today feels like it goes beyond that. The water ways are loaded with filth and contamination of all kinds and also problems from Mother Nature and her processes. Methane plays a role in the problems too. The process of deep drilling for oil/natural gas is problematic. Very deep wells...there is radiation deep down in the earth and fracking disturbs it and probably distributes it because of the very process...into our water, air, and soil. Folks don't always seem to think about the radiation that is deep within the earth or aren't aware of it. There will be more and more of all kinds of species diseases/die offs and such from various reasons and we will all "feel" the effects of it eventually.

Why the heck would anyone use the term "nuclear proctologist?" That is one of the craziest terms I've ever heard. I wanted to start by stating that a survey of lifeforms in the ocean is not something that can be done in a single outing. So unless they really put in the time, effort, and actually have the knowledge of a biologist, I will be skeptical of any claims that come from these guys. Something tells me they aren't professionals, and as such are basically just going out and seeing what animals they see. This is a horrible strategy that is likely to end in failure, and/or bogus claims. Again, I don't know their exact methods, but I simply suspect that they were not done correctly. Animal population studies are something that take lots of time and study, and many factors must be taken into account.

That much would be obvious even to a non-expert. The main reason I replied to this thread is because I wanted to ask just what type of freaking accent that guy has...It is like nothing I've ever heard before. He speaks normally, say an American or Canadian type dialect, and the whenever he has an "I" sound like in the word tide he lapses into some Irish sounding dialect. Is this something that is common in Canada? I am being serious by the way, lol.

a reply to: FlySolo 20 bucks!! Find a first nation member! LOL.

Four years ago the canneries on the Fraser were dumping old fish back into the river and paying a buck a fish for fresh ones. LOL.

I guess 20 isn't so bad from a convenience viewpoint..

Gawd, barbequed....lemon....some beer, corn on the cob....

What's your address??? LMAO

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: Ironclad2000
a reply to: Regenstorm

Seriously, what a load of crap this Fukushima thing is.


Honestly, some of you people make me laugh with all the conspiracy doom and gloom.



Maybe some of you peeps should check the video Wolves of Chernobyl for an insight on how nature can overcome obstacles like this.

You should check out the videos of the horribly deformed children of Chernobyl, I'm sure you'll find them a 'Laugh Riot'.

What have they got to do with anything ?

Most of the deformities and illnesses are with people who were at ground zero, during and immediately after the disaster, who were radiated and subsequently had birth defects and cancer.

Their conditions have very little to do with Chernobyl today as the entire region has been a no go zone for decades.

Chernobyl today is a lush green (albeit, slightly radiated), paradise without any humans and a thriving animal and plant population.

All this hype about Fukushima killing the entire world is total nonsense, coming from a bunch of armchair scientists, armed with nothing but opinions and baseless claims, trying to spread panic because having people believe them actually gives them orgasms.

Fukushima is a non-extinction level or even just a non-event, so give it a rest.

a reply to: Ironclad2000

Fukushima is a non-extinction level or even just a non-event, so give it a rest.

The nuclear power industry must be very very proud of you... they couldn't have said it better.


To try and say that Fukushima is a non-event just shows how ignorant someone is. You should really do a little research.

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
Why the heck would anyone use the term "nuclear proctologist?" That is one of the craziest terms I've ever heard.

This coming from someone who calls himself "Jiggypotamus".

Google 'Projective Identification".

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Ironclad2000

Fukushima is a non-extinction level or even just a non-event, so give it a rest.

The nuclear power industry must be very very proud of you... they couldn't have said it better.


To try and say that Fukushima is a non-event just shows how ignorant someone is. You should really do a little research.

Ignorant to point out that one nuclear incident isn't the end of the world. Sure it shouldn't have happened and sure all nuclear plants should be closed down.

But one melt-down isn't going to change things on a global scale and hardly make a change in the long run on a local scale.

Thirty years from now, Fukushima will be exactly like Chernobyl is today. Without humans present, the place will eventually flourish and stay that way because humans won't ever go there again.

And to say that Fukushima is responsible for a void of life on the other side of the planet, while every other place in between is still teaming with life and activity, is ignorant and shows that people would rather make stuff up than do real research, and find evidence to prove it.

originally posted by: Ironclad2000

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Ironclad2000

Fukushima is a non-extinction level or even just a non-event, so give it a rest.

The nuclear power industry must be very very proud of you... they couldn't have said it better.


To try and say that Fukushima is a non-event just shows how ignorant someone is. You should really do a little research.

Ignorant to point out that one nuclear incident isn't the end of the world.

But one melt-down isn't going to change things on a global scale and hardly make a change in the long run on a local scale.

Yes incredibly IGNORANT, considering FUKUSHIMA is not ONE, but THREE melted coriums that have escaped from their reactor vessels and have only been kept from DETONATING by the application of a river of seawater that has been flowing directly into the Pacific Ocean for THREE AND ONE HALF YEARS.

An "incident", unparalleled in the history of nuclear fission and fully capable of bringing about the extinction of all life in the Pacific ocean and with it, our own.

Your "misunderestimation" is beyond EPIC.

originally posted by: Ironclad2000

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Ironclad2000

Fukushima is a non-extinction level or even just a non-event, so give it a rest.

The nuclear power industry must be very very proud of you... they couldn't have said it better.


To try and say that Fukushima is a non-event just shows how ignorant someone is. You should really do a little research.

Ignorant to point out that one nuclear incident isn't the end of the world. Sure it shouldn't have happened and sure all nuclear plants should be closed down.

But one melt-down isn't going to change things on a global scale and hardly make a change in the long run on a local scale.

Thirty years from now, Fukushima will be exactly like Chernobyl is today. Without humans present, the place will eventually flourish and stay that way because humans won't ever go there again.

And to say that Fukushima is responsible for a void of life on the other side of the planet, while every other place in between is still teaming with life and activity, is ignorant and shows that people would rather make stuff up than do real research, and find evidence to prove it.

1. Ignorant to point out that one nuclear incident isn't the end of the world

Please show me one single time where I ever claimed that Fukushima is the end of the world. You can't, because I have never said that.

2. But one melt-down isn't going to change things on a global scale and hardly make a change in the long run on a local scale.

I never said anything about effecting things on a global scale. You have been reading too much doom porn. Although radiation from Fukushima was detected world wide, the levels were comparatively low. On a local scale, its a huge disaster. Studies are rolling in documenting the effect it is having on local wildlife and insects. To think that there will be "hardly a change in the long run just show pure ignorance about radiation and its effects on the environment.

Plus you don't even seem to be aware there are 3 meltdowns, most likely 2 of those are melt outs.

3. And to say that Fukushima is responsible for a void of life on the other side of the planet

Again, show me one single time where I ever said that. You can't, because I never did. I have said pretty much the exact opposite.


Please quit trying to lump me and other people into the "Fukushima doom porn" group. If thats your taste in reading material, please go hang out on the "Fukushima is making my tapwater extra warm" thread... you will fit in perfect there.

Here's some reading material for you to enhance your apparent lack of knowledge about the effects of radiation on local wildlife and insects around Fukushima:

Biological effects of Fukushima radiation on plants, insects, and animals

A growing body of empirical results from studies of birds, monkeys, butterflies, and other insects suggests that some species have been significantly impacted by the radioactive releases related to the Fukushima disaster,

phys.org...

Well its the herring thats all melted up north in the native fishing groups.

The salmon, we don't pay for it. My father is friends with someone who owned and operating a river rafting/fishing company on the Fraser and they take fishing trips and also golf alot. I keep warning dad about Fukushima but he keeps bringing us very wholesome looking, non mutilated salmon. We let some of it go bad, was too afraid to touch it. But at this point we eat the occasional salmon. And a little bit of sushi.

a reply to: Unity_99

I did a personal follow-up, both in Canada and the U.S. with personal friends.

The Canadian native confirmed the info/rumor of 'dead zones' and my U.S. native buddy hasn't heard anything about it.

The matches my first post response.

Curiouser and curiouser....

a reply to: nwtrucker

I will say this. I did email that chap Dana and offered to fly a UAV anywhere he wants and take pictures and video. That includes my own transportation, lodging, time and the free use of some pretty awesome technology. I got a one sentence response. "Thanks, I'm not sure how this will play out, I'll get back to you". I wasn't expecting a parade or anything but you would think someone as desperate as he sounds would jump all over that. That was the day this thread was made and I haven't heard anything since. Offer has now expired.

a reply to: FlySolo

Yep. My 'B.S. meter" is starting to ping in the red. LOL.

Too many potential vested interests could be in play here. east coast salmon producers, European, so on.

Even the 'square-heads' (joke) could perceive an advantage in lowering trust of west coast fish-we've seen it already in some of the posts where people aren't disposed to eating salmon anymore- thereby reducing both commercial and pleasure fishing? That's pure speculation.

But, it's not impossible.....

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: nwtrucker

I will say this. I did email that chap Dana and offered to fly a UAV anywhere he wants and take pictures and video. That includes my own transportation, lodging, time and the free use of some pretty awesome technology. I got a one sentence response. "Thanks, I'm not sure how this will play out, I'll get back to you". I wasn't expecting a parade or anything but you would think someone as desperate as he sounds would jump all over that. That was the day this thread was made and I haven't heard anything since. Offer has now expired.

So he's saying he only wants to if it plays out in favor of his opinion. Who cares how it plays out if your honest and trying to prove something any experiment/ data you can collect you do. This puts the final nail in the coffin for me with this guy.

UPDATE

This latest installation by the inimitable Beautiful Girl by Dana brings us up to date with his preparations for an extended survey of the Canadian west coast.

I am impressed to see someone actually getting off their a$$ and going to the dead zones to report to us what no government agency will.

Where he finds the patience to so politely address the naysayers and dis-informers is beyond me.

Dana's gratitude and appreciation for genuine assistance is clear and his description of the limitations of his expedition will explain why he can't utilize offers for UAVs. Given the amount of work to launch a mission such as this, I think he does well to respond personally to all those that contact him, however briefly.

No one can doubt his sincerity or earnestness after watching this. He has been frugal in his expenses and lavish with his own blood sweat and tears.

www.youtube.com...

Good luck Dana!

a reply to: Psynic

I highly doubt that he is going to do a better job than these guys are doing.

ourradioactiveocean.org...

Samples collected by scientists and citizens for Our Radioactive Ocean are analyzed in our labs at WHOI using a method that is capable of detecting extremely low levels of radioactivity produced by cesium isotopes in seawater. We report our data in units of Bequerels per cubic meter of seawater (Bq/m3), where one Bequerel is equal to one decay event per second.

We expect samples from the surface waters of the western Pacific that have not been contaminated by the Fukushima source to have 137Cs activity of between 1 and 2 Bq/m3 and for 134Cs to be “below detection.” This is because the only significant source of cesium in the Pacific prior to Fukushima was nuclear weapons testing during the 1950s and 1960s, and with its shorter 2-year half-life, all of the 134Cs from this source would have decayed by now, but because 137Cs has a 30-year half-life, we still see about 25 percent of the amount that was released (50 percent lost in first 30 years, half again of the remaining 50 percent lost in the following 30 years).
By January 2014, about 40 percent of the original Fukushima 134Cs remains in the environment compared to March/April 2011 when the disaster occurred, so we correct our data to account for decay of both cesium isotopes from the time of peak release directly to the ocean from the reactor complex in Fukushima: April 6, 2011. We do this to look for changes in the levels of cesium that result from ocean mixing and dilution, rather than just radioactive decay. For human health concerns, the activity at sampling may be of greater interest, and will be lower than the decay-corrected value we report.

This is their last update:

August 14, 2014
Using the most sensitive methods to measure your water samples, we have detected only cesium-137, the “legacy” cesium that remains from 1960s atmospheric weapons testing. This isotope is still in all ocean basins because of its relatively long 30-year half-life, which means it takes a long time to decay away. Levels of cesium-137 in all 43 samples analyzed thus far average 1.5 Bequerels per cubic meter of water, which is equivalent to one-and-a-half decay events per second per metric ton of water. This is a very small number if we compare it to the 7,400 Bq/m3 used by US EPA as the drinking water limit, and the millions of Bq/m3 of cesium detected in the ocean off Japan in 2011 at the peak of the accident, which at that level are of considerable concern for direct negative impacts on marine biota and human health.
The Fukushima reactors also released cesium-134 into the ocean and because it has a shorter half-life (2 years) any cesium-134 detected in the ocean today must have come from Fukushima. Though we do detect this isotope in abundance off Japan, cesium-134 is not YET present in any of the sample collected by citizen scientists along the North American west coast and Hawaii. Our instruments are capable of detecting as little as 0.2 Bq/m3 so the concentration of cesium-134 is below this level.
We emphasize that cesium-134 has not been detected “YET” as it has been detected offshore of North America by Canadian oceanographers. It’s difficult to predict when these radionuclides will arrive onshore because the mixing of offshore and onshore waters is complicated, and not represented in the simple models that predicted the arrival onshore of Fukushima radionuclides this year. The uncertainty in the predictions by these ocean models only emphasizes the importance of collecting samples from along the shores. Remember too that while those models predict increasing levels of both cesium isotopes for the next 2-3 years, the highest published prediction is for 20-30 Bq/m3, or well below what is thought to be of human health or fisheries concern. But it’s important to continue making observations with real data!

So Fukushima radiation has not even reached the west coast. There is 137Cs from Atomic testing but at a very low level. So if the ocean is empty when he does his survey looks like he will need to find some other cause, which I'm sure he would look at all avenues and not just immediately jump to conclusions.

originally posted by: BGTM90
a reply to: Psynic

I highly doubt that he is going to do a better job than these guys are doing.

ourradioactiveocean.org...

'The Best Science Money Can Buy'.

I put a high value on unimpeachability.

In this installment Dana compares the intertidal habitat of Smugglers Cove Provincial Park in 2011 to 2014.
The lack of living creatures is PROFOUND.

Why doesn't "Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute" address this easily demonstrable situation?

It's because they are an instrument of TPTB.

www.youtube.com...

Between this and the previous post, millions of gallons of radioactive water has continued to flow into the Pacific from Fukushima.

There is no bigger crisis on the planet, yet we continue to be preoccupied with relative trivialities.

Stay distracted peeple.