It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Many baby seals dying of leukemia-linked disorder along California coast

page: 2
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese




if tens of thousands of times the radiation of fukushima currently exists within the ocean, then a drop of blue dye in a red-dye bucket will cause no perceptible difference.


You have ignored many things including the currents in the seas, the water is not just a bath tub.




posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

And one more thing. Your science is crap. That paper is just on radiation in nature. Natural occurrences etc. Nothing to do with nuclear disasters. Pure disinfo on your part. Glad you decided to vacate the thread.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

Excuse me? Disinfo? How the heck do you get there? Do you have reading comprehension issues?

I have made the exact same point over and over again.

Radiation is everywhere, in the water you drink, in the ocean, in the dirt.

My point is very easy to grasp, quit being an idiot.

The amount of radiation on site is a tiny fraction compared to the amount of radiation already in the oceans.

This is in no way, shape, or form disinformation.

The ocean life have lived in balance with the radiation to this point, and the amount from Fukushima is 100% incapable of ending life on land, and/or in the oceans.

Read the OP. The fear-mongerer is quite clear she is scouring the web for any bit nonsense to relate to Fuku, then trying to freak everyone out about how it can end all life on earth.

If you're down to do the necessary work to refute my assertion that fukushima is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to what's already there, then go for it.

If not, then you CHOOSE to remain ignorant, or are admitting you're incapable. Either way, not worth the efforts.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

read this knuckle head.
iopscience.iop.org...




I have made the exact same point over and over again.

Radiation is everywhere, in the water you drink, in the ocean, in the dirt.



We're not talking about current levels of radiation every where. More straw man arguments from you.




If you're down to do the necessary work to refute my assertion that fukushima is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to what's already there, then go for it.



Yeah, like the work you're trying to pass off as your own? Again, wtf are you? Another slack jawed gawker.
Now, what about those currents? I suggest you read my link before you have anymore diarrhea of the mouth


The Pacific Ocean is a vast place, stirred by energetic, fluctuating currents on various scales, all contributing to an effective dilution of the contaminated body of sea water arising from the localized, idealized short-term discharge from the stricken Dai-ichi NPPs. The goal of the present study is to provide a clearer perspective of the spatio-temporal evolution of that dilution process over a decadal time span for a tracer corresponding to 137Cs injected over a near-coastal region off northeastern Japan. The fate of that dye (with a half-life corresponding to 137Cs) was examined by a host of simulations with a set of ocean circulation models differing in the representation of mesoscale eddy fluxes. With caution given to the various idealizations (unknown actual oceanic state during release, unknown release area, no biological effects included, see section 3.4), the following conclusions may be drawn. (i) Dilution due to swift horizontal and vertical dispersion in the vicinity of the energetic Kuroshio regime leads to a rapid decrease of radioactivity levels during the first 2 years, with a decline of near-surface peak concentrations to values around 10 Bq m−3 (based on a total input of 10 PBq). The strong lateral dispersion, related to the vigorous eddy fields in the mid-latitude western Pacific, appears significantly under-estimated in the non-eddying (0.5°) model version. (ii) The subsequent pace of dilution is strongly reduced, owing to the eastward advection of the main tracer cloud towards the much less energetic areas of the central and eastern North Pacific. (iii) The magnitude of additional peak radioactivity should drop to values comparable to the pre-Fukushima levels after 6–9 years (i.e. total peak concentrations would then have declined below twice pre-Fukushima levels). (iv) By then the tracer cloud will span almost the entire North Pacific, with peak concentrations off the North American coast an order-of-magnitude higher than in the western Pacific.


Do you know what order of higher magnitude means? It means X10.

eta: and yes. Disinfo. Either you are purposely trying to muddy the waters or you don't have a clue to what you're talking about. I think both.
edit on 27-8-2015 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
You're showing me that you're incredibly ignorant and have no clue what you're even reading.

This is like an adult without any empathy trying to reason with a toddler.

I can't bridge this gap, man. You're way, way way out of your league here.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

What are you going on about now? Bloody hell dude, it's a study on the long-term dispersal of 137Cs released into the Pacific Ocean. wtf? Get out of here man



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

I'm going on about how your focus on the last sentence and complete disregard for the rest shows just how ignorant you really are! Look at the data provided, it's clearly showing I'm winning here!

Okay, later on I'm going to break this down a different way.

baraccules per liter, liters per day, times a century worth of time, divided by the gallons in the world's oceans, and compare that to the average concentration per liter naturally occuring.

Yet another common sense approach to show just how out of your minds the fear mongers are.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

That was the conclusion of the whole study after I read it. I bolded the last part to spoon feed you some facts. I read the study man. holy fuc#$ I don't have time for you.
Here's another:
www.washingtonsblog.com...
edit on 27-8-2015 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

Yet here we are!

Hey in the meantime here's a cool little site.

Our Radioactivity

Place obviously has an agenda right, what do you think that is?

So let's look at the readings.



My god it's so low it can't even be detected! We all gonna diez!! that means the government is hiding it!!!!

Surely we can find some off the charts high level of radioactivity somewhere?!



Well I found something, but it's not high
MIB must have got to them.


Guess we should look to some of their own findings based on their work, sound good?




“We detected cesium-134, a contaminant from Fukushima, off the northern California coast. The levels are only detectable by sophisticated equipment able to discern minute quantities of radioactivity,” said Ken Buesseler, a WHOI marine chemist, who is leading the monitoring effort. “Most people don’t realize that there was already cesium in Pacific waters prior to Fukushima, but only the cesium-137 isotope. Cesium-137 undergoes radioactive decay with a 30-year half-life and was introduced to the environment during atmospheric weapons testing in the 1950s and ‘60s. Along with cesium-137, we detected cesium-134 – which also does not occur naturally in the environment and has a half-life of just two years. Therefore the only source of this cesium-134 in the Pacific today is from Fukushima.” - See more at: ourradioactiveocean.org...


Funny I couldn't find any 134, though I only looked through a dozen. Can you find any on the data points in that link? 1-2 bq per cubic meter, does that sound like a lot to you?


The amount of cesium-134 reported in these new offshore data is less than 2 Becquerels per cubic meter (the number of decay events per second per 260 gallons of water). This Fukushima-derived cesium is far below where one might expect any measurable risk to human health or marine life, according to international health agencies. And it is more than 1000 times lower than acceptable limits in drinking water set by US EPA. - See more at: ourradioactiveocean.org...


Drats, I guess all those energies fear mongering were just a waste.

How unfortunate for the few who bothered on this site.
edit on 27-8-2015 by pl3bscheese because: 81 not 729



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Cesium 134 only has a 2 year half life. I''m not surprised it can't be detected but it has been. And you do realize those tests are done at surf depth too right?



Funny I couldn't find any 134, though I only looked through a dozen


Yeah ok, here.
www.theweathernetwork.com...

Yes, cesium 134 levels are small, but again, you're using another straw man tactic. It's still very early before anyone can determine the fallout. 10 years time according to that study you said I didn't read, levels will be less than twice that of pre-fukushima. So how long will it take before all the fish are dead? It's already happening. Those dead elephant seal results show a large percentage of being malnourished. 30 whales washed up in Alaska this summer and sea lions are losing their fur and thousands of birds are washing up on shore.

Here, let me fix you a tall cold glass of water. You'll need it to wash down the kool aid



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

Here let's prove if you can be an intellectual or not. Go do a google search or way back search in the internet time machine thingie.

Search pre Fukushima and try to find all the occurances of beached seal, whales, shark, and such. Try to find as many "mass die offs" of ocean life pre 2011 and let me know what you come up with.

Now try to tell me how that is different than now.

I got faith in you, go to it!

FYI, the half life would mean in 2013, 2011 dispersal would register half the rate, and in 2015 one quarter. Per their site the instruments can go down to .1 bq. So unless it was not enough to hit .2-.4bq then... so yea, not enough to harm sea life, sorry!
edit on 27-8-2015 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   
These sorts of die offs always happen around an El Nino event because the ocean systems aren't in the optimal for sustaining the same amounts of life they had been before. Lots of warm surface water just doesn't support the same abundance of life throughout the system as the cooler water does. Then you have had very few El Ninos recently and this one is a very strong one to boot.

There is a lot of sea life in a system that suddenly isn't able to support it. You are going to sea the top predators having trouble supporting their young and unhealthy young.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Sorry, this is where you're dead wrong. The number of whales is unprecedented. Listen, you're selling and I'm not buying. I can refute you all day but it won't change a thing.
edit on 27-8-2015 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

Cool, so I'm guessing you can in any way back up that statement with evidence.

I await it to be presented.

Thanks for helping out.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

ecowatch.com...


You really couldn't bother yourself? Speaks volumes dude. And you expect people to listen to what you have to say? I remember you saying once "if fish are stupid enough to swim through it"


edit on 27-8-2015 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

Over you? I sure hope so. Let's break this down, shall we?

There were 30 whales that died. Less than 3 dozen. In one area of the earth.

You have yet to prove that there is a significant increase in die-offs for this year vs any other globally.

You have yet to show that this is in any way out of the norm for sea life in general, as in there's so many damned species, and each year die offs occur all over the world, and surely a species gets ill from an infection and dies out higher than others every single year.

So yea, what you got, man?

So 10,000 times that die from water pollution already, according to this site.

300k of them:




Once, whales faced only natural threats, such as predators and disease. These days, whales encounter many other dangers related to human activities.

Industrial waste and litter pollute the sea, including plastic debris, which can float in thewater for some time. A whale may mistake it for food, swallow it, and get a blocked gut as a result. The animal then starves to death.

Ships can run into whales, and boat noises, such as sonar, can disrupt whales’ ability to communicate and navigate. Each year, an estimated 300,000 whales die because of fishing activities.


Link

Now you're telling me just cause you feel it's tied into FuKu... these 30 are significant, or something, right?

.... a clear lack of perspective.
edit on 27-8-2015 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Are you trolling me? look at the friggen stats in the link. All you do is contradict, no argument, just flat out contradict. its 3x higher ffs. Ya you're trolling,



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

You see, I win over and over, and you cry troll.

That's how this works.

You can't admit you're wrong.

You can't have it both ways. You said the cessium is no longer detected cause the half life, yet now it's killing whales off the coast of alaska? Explain that one to me.
edit on 27-8-2015 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Wrong about what? that fact you're a troll? I hand fed you a link you ask for and then you say I'm wrong. LMAO gtfo dude.
Where's your credentials? You're a nobody thinking you've got it all figured out passing off work done from Idaho university as yours. You're no one and you know nothing of the subject. You've been pawned this whole debate now give up.




You can't have it both ways. You said the cessium is no longer detected cause the half life, yet now it's killing whales off the coast of alaska? Explain that one to me.


Oh now you're putting words in my mouth. FYI, necropsy results from the whales aren't in yet, but they're testing. Why bother? Hmph right? Cesium has no effect so we can sleep at night. And your arguments are so strife with straw men, its sad really. I said cesium 134 half life is 2 years, we've already been through this. Now you cherry pick to suit your point. No Cesium 137 is 30 years, but you know this. It's like I'm talking to a kid or someone with Asperger syndrome.
edit on 27-8-2015 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

Okay, so clearly anyone who has more than a few brain cells will see who the winner is. This wasn't about a win, it was about going to the extent that you're thoroughly discredited from people who weren't sure what was going on and might have otherwise been influenced by you.

You don't have what it takes to comprehend my points, so think I'm merely objecting without any reasoning backing it. You're looking at very specific things and not weighing them globally. Which makes perfect sense for anyone who would think this is such a huge event years later. They're just not bright.

Done with ya. Thanks for helping out!



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join