NOAA officials: “We don’t know what’s going on in the environment..."

Alaska Dispatch News, Jul 24, 2015 (emphasis added): Ailing seal pup rescued in latest discovery of distressed Alaska marine mammals … one of a string of marine mammals injured or killed in Alaska waters this year. An orphaned and injured seal pup… was one of several found this summer, federal agency officials said… The pup was lethargic and very thin — only 16.5 pounds… It was the second such case this week, NOAA spokeswoman Julie Speegle said Friday. An orphaned seal was picked up in Metlakatla… NOAA officials were also called out to another case in Yakutat recently, she said. “We don’t know what’s going on in the environment, but it does seem to be an unusual year,” Speegle said. Seal pups are not the only marine mammals experiencing some difficulty in waters off Alaska. NOAA and the University of Alaska Fairbanks are conducting an investigation into the deaths of 14 whales… U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been investigating the deaths of approximately 25 walruses found in the area of the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge… Carrie Goertz, a staff veterinarian at the SeaLife Center, said… she agreed that there have been some out-of-the-ordinary events with marine mammals in general. “There’s definitely been some clusters of unusual deaths,” she said.
Link to article

The above article contains an admission by the US government that they “don’t know what’s going on in the environment" regarding the recent mass death in the Pacific Ocean. I'm posting this to try and wake up those who are claiming, "It's El Niño", "It's cyclical", "It has nothing to do with Fukushima", etc. Anyone claiming those things in this thread will look foolish, claiming that they know more about all this than the NOAA.

Those claiming that all this has nothing to do with Fukushima because radiation levels are low in the Pacific Ocean are missing the most salient point about all this:

The level of radiation in the water throughout the Pacific Ocean is irrelevant here. The most salient issue is bioaccumulation in the Pacific Ocean.

Highly irradiated fish caught near crippled Japan nuclear plant
Link to article

Highly irradiated fish from near Japan SWIM to other parts of the Pacific Ocean where they're eaten. Bioaccumulation spreads throughout the food chain regardless of the levels of radiation in the water throughout the Pacific Ocean. If someone doesn't believe that's happening, can they point to one credible study that disproves that's happening? I don't think such a thing exists in the public sphere...I wonder why?

a reply to: Profusion

If someone doesn't believe that's happening, can they point to one credible study that disproves that's happening? I don't think such a thing exists in the public sphere…I wonder why?

Exactly, and theres your sign. They do studies on these animals, they know what toxins bioaccumulate in their flesh. Especially species at the top of the food chain like whales and seals (considered toxic waste when they wash up on the beach).

That they tell us they don't know whats causing their death now is pure BS.

ETA: Radioactive elements and isotopes are readily identifiable by detectors that can determine exactly were they are and in what quantities. I get thats expensive and messy say when cutting up rotten whale carcasses to get at their thyroids…

But the government spends trillions on defense, isn't this defensive in nature as well? Oh, blacked out.

Can't link…

e360.yale.edu...

This has been ongoing for sometime now......

www.treehugger.com...

NOAA has been saying the same thing since this started 3-4 yrs ago. No answers and nothings changes, marine animals dying all over the place and because it's in more remote locations unless you are monitoring the local news up there?
Yeah....
Swept under the rug.
I'd love to know if they are seeing the same mortality events on the Russian coast. Canada isn't doing much either, with all the scientist's pulled and the remaining ones on a "short leash". It's difficult to get a sense of scale of this event.

Not buying wild salmon will get the message across...

It's $14/lb where I live.
Enjoy your contaminated seafood...depopulation in play.

You're asking to prove a negative. It's illogical.

Look, the "bioaccumulation" makes no sense, either. The amount of radiation in the whole of the FUKU facility is incapable of bioaccumulating in the world's oceans to any considerable degree. You can't get exact figures for the sum total, but looking from one figure to the next gives you a general idea. When you compare even the high estimates to the amount of natural radiation in the oceans, you realize it's a complete joke to think this can impact the world's oceans in a measurable way. It can't.

What you're missing is scales, and perspective. Yes, some fish right next to FUKU, a tiny area compared to the whole of the earth, can be irradiated to a marked degree. Yes, if larger animals are stupid enough to eat them, they will push it through the food chain. No, you wouldn't see this on the other side of the world hitting whole clusters of animals. It makes no sense.

You're "proof" is not only link less , but a little rude. How about you prove your point with actual facts instead of just bringing negative feedback! a reply to: pl3bscheese

a reply to: Boomy327

It's not rude to state the truth. A simple search will show you how much radiation is in the world's oceans.

Link

41 EBq of Uranium, for instance.

I'll leave it to you to do the work to figure out how much radiation and of which isotopes were at Fuku at the time of incident. I did the work a few years ago, and can't be bothered right now.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

So I guess the world can actually afford a few more melt downs
with no worries? And all our previous fears we had towards
melt downs were completely unwarrented. In fact, according to
you sea life in the pacific is dying from paranoia? Or am I on
the wrong page?

a reply to: randyvs

Wrong place. Do a historical search for sea life die offs pre FUKU. This happens the world over every year, but is accelerating mainly due to the effects of AGW, and overfishing, as has been predicted.

a reply to: pl3bscheese


Dude don't waste your breath.
You're trying to tell chicken little that the sky is not falling.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Not saying you're wrong, just to be clear.
But it's really hard to believe there are 4 meltdowns in Japan
with no serious consequences coming about. And every time
we begin to see what might be some affects. Someone is right
there to strike it down.

I must emplore that seems a bit odd in itself.

a reply to: randyvs

There are serious consequences, for Fukushima. I'm trying to bring some perspective is all. This isn't a non-event for Japan, and especially for the area surrounding the plant, but for the globe? It keeps on spinning as if it never happened.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Ya so far it has I agree. And believe me when I say I
don't look forward to anything negative coming out
of all that's going on with Japan. But you do understand
people are going to be concerned that they may be left in the
dark, so to speak, pun intended?

a reply to: intrptr

It easy to prove the biological passing along of radiation (contaminating creatures eating other ocean creatures). All you need is a detector...and the will to know the truth. But the early trick was to turn off the stationary detectors, and now,it is simply not to look where the attention should be put. Denial works well for governments, officials, and worse, even for the public.

a reply to: randyvs

They've been left in the dark from the beginning, which is why I did the rough figures a few months after the event. I wanted to see what would happen in the worst scenarios. What I can say with absolute certainty is the people who were saying it could cause an ELE, or even the death of x number of tens to hundreds of millions, were entirely out of their minds lying through their teeth. All of that fear has died down, but what's left comes up in watered down threads like this.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
You're asking to prove a negative. It's illogical.

It's impossible to prove an absolute negative in a case like this, I agree. So, why aren't you holding the following posters accountable like you are me? If they can't even offer any evidence for the bolded parts of their posts below, they should not be writing them, don't you agree? That's one point I was trying to make in the second to the last sentence in the original post.

All of the bolded stuff below is automatically invalid as you just admitted. That's another point I was trying to get across in the original post.

originally posted by: mtnshredder
This has little to nothing to do with Fukushima. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe those are Crown of Thorns starfish that you see in the vid. They're extremely destructive to coral reefs and wipe out every thing in thier path.. They're also becoming a major threat to the Great Barrier reef.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: EndOfDays77
This mass die off has nothing to do with Fukushima! It will be due to methane release,the patterns of mass die offs mirror the plate boundaries.

This is a very alarming sign,even more so given that all my data and sources are pointing to a huge event here.

I made a prediction (based on data from Terral 03 who has earned His credibility for His accuracy) this prediction states that there will be a magnitude 8 earthquake on the West Coast of the U.S. on,or shortly after August 15th as we will be in 90 degree alignment with our approaching celestial object.

Anyone with a brain should be no where near the West Coast!!

Here's My prediction:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Stay well ATS!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Leonidas
It has everything to do with ocean temperature and the environmental conditions of the rivers. It has NOTHING to do with Fukushima. Nothing.

Woods Hole Institute and University of Victoria (among others) have said categorically that the levels in the ocean of the West Coast of the Pacific Northwest is insignificant.

Drought, El Nino, and environmental degradation of salmon spawning rivers are what is behind the problem.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: dreamingawake
This is not Fukushima it is the consequence of a three state drought of the area, in OR, ID and WA causing this. From the lessened snow packs from a dry winter last year to yes, to the record temperatures as of late. Actually The record temp just dropped today from 90s plus, doubt it's going to mean much if the damage is done. Later in the month, as last year's temps, doubt it will stay under 90s plus degrees. The record temps are already said to be projecting another dry winter.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
Look, the "bioaccumulation" makes no sense, either. The amount of radiation in the whole of the FUKU facility is incapable of bioaccumulating in the world's oceans to any considerable degree. You can't get exact figures for the sum total, but looking from one figure to the next gives you a general idea. When you compare even the high estimates to the amount of natural radiation in the oceans, you realize it's a complete joke to think this can impact the world's oceans in a measurable way. It can't.

What you're missing is scales, and perspective. Yes, some fish right next to FUKU, a tiny area compared to the whole of the earth, can be irradiated to a marked degree. Yes, if larger animals are stupid enough to eat them, they will push it through the food chain. No, you wouldn't see this on the other side of the world hitting whole clusters of animals. It makes no sense.

Tepco raises toxic water estimate to 400 tons a day
www.japantimes.co.jp...

That's the estimate but some think that the true number could be much higher, I've heard up to ten times the official number. With TEPCO dumping irradiated water into the ocean regularly, who knows how much irradiated water has been dumped into the ocean due to Fukushima?

And of course, the irradiated water is just the beginning. There's tons of radiation from Fukushima traveling through the air and a lot of that falls into the ocean.

As to the rest of your post, I have no idea where you're coming from. I hope someone with expertise on this issue thoroughly debunks you here because I don't want to spend any more time on it.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

How many more melt downs can the world endure?

Honestly, if you have that kind of data any where?

I'm just asking so I understand better where you're
coming from.

a reply to: Profusion

There's no debunking, I'm making perfect sense. You don't even understand "400 tonnes per day" is entirely lacking context to be any meaningful information. For layman like yourself, that's a large number, and it scares you.

You have no clue the degree of the radioactive concentration within that water, but this gives a big clue as to your lack of scientific understanding. It's tragic. You hurt from your ignorance.

a reply to: randyvs

It's about rate over time, perhaps more so than total radiation dispersed. I mean, the earth already has issues remaining a habitable environment for various species on this planet. In the context of remaining a viable home for our species, well I would be looking elsewhere, but there are plenty of people freaked out for doomsday scenarios where the lights go off from civilization, and all the plants go into meltdown. I think that's nonsense, as you can do makeshift shutdowns if you absolutely have to, and contain to a degree while you figure things out, but meh. I did the calculations a few years ago, man. Got nothing to show right here and now. That's me being honest. Not worth my efforts. What I recall is that it's damned complex. You're dealing with plants that have different configurations of reactors, are replacing rods of different sizes, and radioactive constituents, with differing degrees of partially used fuel. It's not a black and white thing where a number could ever be had, it would always depend on many things.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Thank you for your replys cheese.

It's obvious you know what you're talk'n about,
because you would have to just by the corner you're
arguing from.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Profusion

There's no debunking, I'm making perfect sense. You don't even understand "400 tonnes per day" is entirely lacking context to be any meaningful information. For layman like yourself, that's a large number, and it scares you.

You have no clue the degree of the radioactive concentration within that water, but this gives a big clue as to your lack of scientific understanding. It's tragic. You hurt from your ignorance.

You have no clue the degree of the radioactive concentration within that water

I've followed this story closely for years. I don't think you have a clue. For example:

‘Crisis’ at Fukushima plant — Tepco: Extremely radioactive water from trench is leaking directly into groundwater and going into ocean

Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Saturday that the trench problem at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant has cropped up again and is sending highly radioactive water into the sea. [...]

[The water] contains 2.35 billion becquerels of cesium per liter [...]
Link to article

I could point to many stories like that over the years that came directly from TEPCO.

Just extrapolate these stories and realize that TEPCO has been lying for years, admittedly. Every time they've admitted to lying they did it to downplay the situation. That's one reason there's great cause for concern. None of us know the truth but we have every reason to think the truth is far worse than what we know.

Now let's admit the truth:

Almost certainly, only TEPCO insiders truly know how bad this situation is but you want people to believe that you have some magical ability to perceive the truth about how much radioactive water from Fukushima is flowing into the ocean, how badly it's radiated, and the effect it's having.

Almost certainly, if anyone knows for sure it's only TEPCO. And since they frequently lie and always lie to downplay the situation, I don't know where you get your confidence from in terms of your idea that your assessment is correct.

You offer no sources to back your assertions and your arguments have no validity.