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.

 

Dead sea creatures cover 98 percent of ocean floor off California coast as result of Fukushima nucle

page: 5
43
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by nothingwrong
 


Actually the big question is " Is this really happening? Where is the proof that 98% of the ocean floor is covered with dead sea life"
Because they can't see the sea floor in most of the Pacific ocean. It's too deep. This is some persons attempt to scare people. I don't know what the motivation is but it certainly is not beneficial. I never understand the motivation behind doom porn. I don't have the mind for it. Of course there are other folks who pass the information along because they believe and feel they are doing a service by letting other people know and I find no fault with them. They are innocent. It's the ones who originate the lie that I find fault with. And with every disaster that befalls our planet they come out of the woodwork to spread fear. With every news article about comets they come to say it's going to crash into us. ( remember Elenine last year, this year Ison) Every CME is an extinction level event. Every earthquake is a precursor to the BIG ONE THAT WILL CRACK THE PLANET IN HALF. Every meeting of world leaders is to discuss how they can control and eventually destroy us. Every storm is created by HARP. Every lone shooter is under the control of the cabal or under the influence of MK Ultra. It gets tiring doesn't it?




posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by nothingwrong
 
Wow, 9.9! Isn't that an ELE size? I hope it's not facing our way.

The above from another thread is exactly to the point I just made. I love corroborating evidence. LOL



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by AutumnWitch657
 


What you are railing against here is lack of education. The particular post to which you are referring shows that this poster is unaware of the scales involved and the difference in classifications of CMEs. I would kindly link some sources that this person could use if they so chose to educate themselves in more depth on the matter. That is what I do when I am concerned about a situation.

Your immediately prior post to the one to which I am currently responding also makes several valid arguments, however sometimes a cigar is not just a cigar and things do have deeper implications. It is up to the wise to try and discern whether or not there is more than meets the eye to any given situation or whether the facts as presented to make up the whole of the story. Sometimes they do and other times they don't.

Back to the particular topic at hand, that is the study that is being portrayed as showing proof that Fukushima is poisoning the area of the Pacific covered by this monitoring station, again a few excerpts from the study:


Global warming is now a well-documented phenomenon that is influencing every aspect of our world, from increased storm intensity to melting of polar ice sheets and rising sea level. The impact of such changes in climate is least known for the deep ocean, which covers over 60% of the earth’s surface.

...

The highest sea-floor coverage by detrital aggregates measured throughout the 24-y time series occurred between March and August 2012, when salp detritus ranged from < 1% cover in early March to a high of 98% cover on 1 July (Fig. 1E).

...

This peak was 54% higher than any pre-2011 measure of SCOC.

...

It is not yet clear whether there might be an increasing trend in the food supply to other deep-ocean time- series stations.

...

An examination of satellite-estimated EF of organic carbon since 1997 from long time-series research stations, including PAP (Porcupine Abyssal Plain, northeast Atlantic), DELOS (Deep- Ocean Long-Term Envirnonmental Research Station, south Atlantic), Hausgarten (Arctic), and CARIACO (Cariaco Basin, Caribbean) also suggest that the highest monthly fluxes from the euphotic zone occurred in 2011–2012 (Fig. S3). Relatively oligotrophic stations, such as the Bermuda Atlantic Time-Series (BATS), Hawaii Ocean Time-series (HOT), North Atlantic Oligotrophic Gyre (NOG), and South Atlantic Oligotrophic Gyre (SOG), however, show no such recent increase (Fig. S3).


Deep ocean communities impacted by changing climate over 24 y in the abyssal northeast Pacific Ocean

In regards to this you are correct in the assertion that the person writing the article in the OP is using data from one study to suggest causation where none may be.

I would like to see information from other stations similar to the graphs I posted in my first response to this thread to see if the spikes in other areas are as pronounced as the ones at this monitoring station. That the Atlantic and Caribbean stations are also showing high fluxes while the Hawaiian does not show an increase would seem to rule out Fukushima; however I would like to see if the Hawaiian station showed a spike earlier as the radiation from the initial explosions reached Hawaii a lot sooner that it has reached the West Coast (at least the portion where this measuring took place) and a spike there at that time would be indicative of possible connection.

All in all, I think Fukushima is a very bad situation that is the result of a long list of bad decisions and poor foresight if not outright negligence. It's not an ELE, and it's long term wide ranging effects will be extremely difficult to quantify but it is certainly no benefit to anyone who values life.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Listening to this debate has left my head dizzy. Fact, sea life is dying in never seen before numbers. Coastal creatures are also dying from unknown reasons, every where along the pacific. Every study to determine the cause gets left at, cause to be determined. Not one scientist has provided a good enough theory evidently. Which shows in the debate occurring here. Regardless of the actual cause, seems we can't stop it. I'd love to see the numbers and facts on how these die offs effect the world food reserves.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 12:13 PM
link   
alright what are they gonna do when cthullu wakes up from this and comes out of the ocean. no but seriously doesn't the algae provide oxygen



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Hmm,

wiki.answers.com...


There are 70 million cubic miles of water in the Pacific, which equates to 187,189,915,062,857,142,857 gallons, (187 quintillion gallons or 187,189,915,062 billion gallons), of water in the Pacific Ocean.


So, 1 gallon of radiated water in 1 Billion gallons, would be I Parts Per Billion, an often used number for measuring contamination.

So a billion gallons of water from Yukushuma, would give 1 PPB contamination, but radioactive contamination doesn't work that way.

www.livescience.com...

This is from August 2013.


The Tokyo Electric Power Plant (TEPCO) estimated that since the March 2011 disaster, between 20 trillion and 40 trillion becquerels of radioactive tritium have leaked into the ocean, the Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun reported.

The damaged plant is still leaking about 300 tons of water containing these radionuclides into the ocean every day, Japanese government officials say. An additional 300 tons have leaked into the ground from the latest storage tank leak.

Ever since the 2011 disaster, scientists have been measuring levels of radioactivity in fish and other sea life. Several species of fish caught off the coast of Fukushima in 2011 and 2012 had cesium levels that exceeded Japan's regulatory limit for seafood, but the overall cesium levels of ocean life have dropped since the fall of 2011, U.S. and Japanese scientists both reported.


I wonder if cesium levels are the only thing they should be looking at.

Here is what another source reports.

enenews.com...


Jiji Press, Nov. 12, 2013: Radiation Level Hits Record High in Fukushima Well Water. Tepco said Tuesday the highest level of beta ray-emitting radioactive materials such as strontium was detected in water collected Sunday from an observation well. The level of such substances in the well water stood at 710,000 becquerels per liter, according to TEPCO and marked a record high for the fourth straight day. The well is about 15 meters north of the storage tank, from which some 300 tons of radioactive water leaked


Here is a link that helps put these numbers into a better understanding.

www.world-nuclear.org...


The air in many 100 sq metre European homes (radon) up to 30 000 Bq

1 household smoke detector (with americium) 30 000 Bq

Radioisotope for medical diagnosis 70 million Bq

1 luminous Exit sign (1970s) 1 000 000 million Bq (1 TBq)


So

1 Tera Becquerels for an exit sign to glow.

20 trillion and 40 trillion becquerels of radioactive tritium can make 20 to 40 exits signs glow?

These numbers just don't add up.

And it seems even the experts aren't sure.

web.mit.edu...


So, regardless of what units we use, how high does the exposure have to be before it produces significant effects? “If only we knew the answer,” Yanch says. We do know, at the high end, what levels produce immediate radiation sickness or death, but the lower the doses go, the less certain the data are on the effects. “
...
Some things are clear: A radiation dose of 500 millisieverts (mSv) or more can begin to cause some symptoms of radiation poisoning. Studies of those exposed to radiation from the atomic bomb blast at Hiroshima showed that for those who received a whole-body dose of 4,500 mSv, about 50 percent died from acute radiation poisoning. By way of comparison, the average natural background radiation in the United States is 2.6 mSv. The legal limit for annual exposure by nuclear workers is 50 mSv, and in Japan that limit was just raised for emergency workers to 250 mSv.


So we have Becquerels and now millisieverts.

So, if you follow the rabbit down the hole,

www.hc-sc.gc.ca...


The becquerel (Bq) is named after the French physicist A.H. Becquerel. This unit measures radioactivity in a substance. It doesn't consider the type of radiation emitted or what its effects may be. One becquerel equals one nuclear disintegration per second. This is a very small unit, so multiples are often used. These include the:

kilobecquerel (kBq: thousand Bq);
megabecquerel (MBq: million Bq); and
gigabecquerel (GBq: thousand million or billion Bq).

The sievert (Sv) is named after the Swedish physicist Rolf M. Sievert. The unit reflects the biological effects of the ionizing radiation absorbed. It is used to express both the equivalent dose and the effective dose. The sievert is a very large dose of radiation. A more useful unit is the millisievert (mSv). This is one-thousandth of a sievert.


So, further down the rabbit hole.

tsukubascience.com...


Radioactivity is often expressed in becquerels per unit of volume or weight, to express how much radioactive material is contained in a sample. But the unit of volume or weight is not fixed, so we may see becquerels per kilogram (Bq/kg), becquerels per litre (Bq/l), becquerels per cubic meter (Bq/m3), or becquerels per cubic centimetre (Bq/cm3). Of course we need to pay careful attention to this because 100 Bq/cm3 indicates 1000 times more radioactive material than 100Bq/l, which in turn indicates 1000 times more than 100Bq/m3.

But absorbed dose alone does indicate how much damage is done to the body, since different types of radiation cause different amounts of damage. So the absorbed dose is multiplied by a weighting factor (1 for beta and gamma radiation, and 20 for alpha radiation). The result is called equivalent dose and it is expressed in sieverts. This is essentially a measure of the amount of potential damage to the body from a given amount of radiation. Since one sievert is very large, we usually hear of the much smaller millisieverts (1/1000 sievert) or microsieverts (1/100000 sievert).


So, in trying to tie all this info together, the first link creates a problem.

20 trillion and 40 trillion becquerels of radioactive tritium Per what volume?
For a glowing exit sign, 1 TBq per what volume? Probably around a mL.

One more link.

www.japantimes.co.jp...


Tepco said Wednesday it detected 200,000 becquerels per liter of beta ray-emitting radioactive substances, including strontium-90, far above the legal limit of 30 becquerels per liter, as well as cesium-134 and -137, both within their legal limits.


At a 1,000 liters per ton, 300 tons per day, is 300,000 liters per day, for 600 days, 180,000,000 Liters into the ocean, of 200,000 Bq per liter, is 36,000,000,000,000. Ok, that is where they are getting 20 to 40 TBq total.

But we have an observation well with 710,000 becquerels per liter.

Radioisotope for medical diagnosis 70 million Bq.

Still doesn't convert to Sieverts. How long would a fish survive swimming in 200,000 Bqs per liter of water when the limit is 30 Bq per liter? What happens at the limit of 30 Bqs? 30 TBqs per liter should contaminate 30 Trillion liters of water at the limit. Approx 800 quintillion liters in the ocean.


edit on 4-1-2014 by poet1b because: formatting



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   

AutumnWitch657
reply to post by nothingwrong
 


Because they can't see the sea floor in most of the Pacific ocean. It's too deep. This is some persons attempt to scare people. I don't know what the motivation is but it certainly is not beneficial. I never understand the motivation behind doom porn. I don't have the mind for it. Of course there are other folks who pass the information along because they believe and feel they are doing a service by letting other people know and I find no fault with them. They are innocent. It's the ones who originate the lie that I find fault with. And with every disaster that befalls our planet they come out of the woodwork to spread fear.


$$$$$

It's all about getting page views for their blog and selling disaster supplies.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by AutumnWitch657
 


Exactly, we have done Atomic and Nuclear bomb testing in the Pacific, that has released more radiation then this reactor.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
To wrap my head around this.

800,000,000 Trillion liters in the Pacific ocean, and so far enough BQs to contaminate 30 Trillion of those liters at current acceptable disposal limits.

It looks like we would need a 26 million times more radioactive water dumped into the pacific to contaminate the whole ocean to acceptable disposal limits.

The problem is that the entire Pacific will not blend like a margarita, at least 3/4 of that water is deep ocean, and essentially doesn't circulate with the top waters where all the fish live. The California Current is about 10 to 13 million cubic meters per second, about 315 T cubic liters per year. A large portion of the current going past Japan winds up in the California current, but for numbers, say 50%. Rough estimate 5 T Bqs per year into 315 T cubic M of ocean circulation. That is about 15 M Bqs per liter, which is about 20% of the radiation exposure from an X-ray machine. That is alot. Someone, please check my numbers.

At 10 TBq a year it would take 2.6 million years to increase the level of the entire pacific ocean to acceptable disposable water limits, but looking at the rough numbers, not nearly as much to contaminate the west coast of N America.

Sushi is now completely off of my diet.

What are the natural radioactive numbers for the world's oceans?

www.dailykos.com...#


The average radioactivity of seawater is about 14 Bq/L of which 88% is from naturally occurring potassium-40 (K-40). About 7% is from anthropogenic fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing and nuclear accidents like Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima Daiichi (2011). So there is about 13 Bq/L of natural radioactivity on average is the oceans. In high salinity areas (where conservative elements that scale with salinity like K and U have the highest concentration) activity can be as high as 22 Bq/L (Persian Gulf) and 15 Bq/L (eastern Mediterranean).


So 30 Bq/L is more than double the natural average level of around 13 from potassium.

SO, what is the weighting factor of strontium verses potassium, in getting to our critical sievert factor?

At this point in time, it seems that we must talk to the hooka smoking catapillar, and you aren't going to get any straight answers. Strontium attacks the bones. Ok, so avoid eating fish bones. Oh, but wait, fish eat fish bones.There is this whole problem with being at the top of the food chain, so that in the end, we wind up with the highest dose.

Search for "sievert quality factor strontium", gives a lot of links that do not ever give up this number, so my guess is that these values change considerably with the circumstances, and apparently no one has crunched these numbers yet for Fukushima, or if they have, they are not putting it out to the general public.

This article is about as close as I have found to addressing the issue.

rense.com...


But knowing the disintegrations per second doesn't tell you very much, really. To guess at the damage a given amount of radiation causes, you still need to know the average energy of the disintegrations. And of course, you need to know the type of emission: alpha, beta, gamma, x-ray, etc.. Each type has different properties, and each isotope's type(s) of emissions have average energy levels. Some occur together -- a gamma ray and an alpha emission. Some follow in short sequence: A beta emission followed by a gamma ray shortly thereafter.


Apparently it is very complicated. No one seems to know where the pieces might fall. Of course there is the outrageous price of California Real Estate that is certainly thrown into the mix somewhere.

My mind goes back to the link in my previous post that states, "15 meters north of the storage tank, from which some 300 tons of radioactive water leaked," "the level of such substances in the well water stood at 710,000 becquerels per liter"

710,000 Bq/L is 3.5 times the number I used to come up with 30 TBq total, of 200,000 Bq/L.

I'd say an increase of 3.5 times the Bq of waste water is a good indication that things are getting worse, and the numbers, when crunched don't look good.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by nighthawk1954
 


This is obviously going to go Biblical very soon.
Then God will destroy those who destroy the Earth.

"And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth."
Revelation 11:18



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Toadmund
So what you say is that I should end my moratorium on tuna sandwiches?
I don't know what to think anymore.
You've got this one group saying it's very bad, the other group saying it's just fine.
(Nothing to see folks, move along)

I suppose if I want to know the truth I will need two things:
1) A tuna sandwich
2) A geiger counter

I just don't know what to know about anything I really need to know about, that's what I know.


A Geiger counter won't really work unless it's extremely contaminated because they just aren't sensitive enough to be accurate with low levels of contamination. To get an accurate reading of the total amount of radiation in your food, you'd need to reduce it to ash and read it in a scintillation counter.

As for what is causing the mass die-offs in the ocean, I see Fuku as being just a small part of the current problem, though it will undoubtedly become a larger instigator over time as more and more radiation is released into the ocean and as the radiation already taken in by critters does its slow deadly work.

I think (as has been mentioned in this thread already) ocean acidification is the primary problem, with deep ocean vents and volcanos and their emissions being a close second. Pollution is also a major problem, as well as overfishing.

All of these things in concert are stressing the ocean life tremendously, and this is causing many deaths due to overly stressed immune systems, and also starvation as the bottom level organisms (plankton, algae, minnows etc.) die off, which cascades up the food chain. It has gotten so bad that now we are seeing sea birds dying, due to starvation and weakened immune systems lessening resistance to diseases.

I do see a need to curb carbon emissions simply to help the oceans recover. The climate change issue is really as big a priority, in my mind, because if the oceans die the entire planet dies soon after. This may yet turn out to be an ELE event - but it is the result of several causes, not just one.

In the end, we will all die...just not on the same day - and this would be true even if we all died simultaneously.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Varhaard
A Geiger counter won't really work unless it's extremely contaminated because they just aren't sensitive enough to be accurate with low levels of contamination. To get an accurate reading of the total amount of radiation in your food, you'd need to reduce it to ash and read it in a scintillation counter.


They're accurate enough to pick up on a banana which is considered safe to eat despite being naturally radioactive. They also pick up on everyday items we use that are radioactive.


I think (as has been mentioned in this thread already) ocean acidification is the primary problem, with deep ocean vents and volcanos and their emissions being a close second. Pollution is also a major problem, as well as overfishing.


We do agree here though. Actually, on the subject of overfishing I support people cutting back on their fish eating simply because we're over fishing the oceans. The fish themselves are perfectly safe to eat however (atleast for now) provided they don't come from right off the waters of Fukushima due to the disaster or from the coast of China due to high levels of mercury.


I do see a need to curb carbon emissions simply to help the oceans recover. The climate change issue is really as big a priority, in my mind, because if the oceans die the entire planet dies soon after. This may yet turn out to be an ELE event - but it is the result of several causes, not just one.


It's highly unlikely a nuclear plant will ever be an ELE event. They can be extremely damaging to a local environment but that's about as far as it goes. What to do with the spent fuel is a far bigger concern, which again goes back to the need to start building modern reactors. Being so much more efficient we will end up with a lot less spent fuel.

In the end, we will all die...just not on the same day - and this would be true even if we all died simultaneously.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Text Please consider for a moment that the study is claiming the bottom of the sea is covered, 99 percent covered, with dead sea life. The bottom of the Pacific Ocean is not 3 feet deep. A bunch of dedicated volunteers are not out there with sifting nets studying the dead sea life. Today it is physically impossible for "scientists" to make this type of study in any real way.

For the past 50 years I've seen so many academic scare stories that seem to be specifically designed to scare the public into supporting some advocates agenda and of course to getting more federal and corporate funding for additional studies.

Think, the bottom of the Pacific and the Atlantic for that matter, might as well be on the surface of the moon. There are no underwater laboratory cities a mile down where special, crush proof mini submarines are used by dedicated marine scientists to study the bottom of the sea. So please consider, how did this group of scientists conduct a study over thousands of square miles of truly unknown lands deep, very deep, below the surface of the ocean that could actually determine that 99 percent of the sea bottom is covered by dead marine life.

Strangely, the "scientists" never seem to disclose how their scare story studies were conducted. Considering the costs of examining any tiny portion of the sea bottom to conduct such a story would actually costs billions of dollars excuse me for calling this more nonsense. Far too often our news media gets handout press releases from advocacy groups quoting such studies and they never bother to look into the study to question "how could it's conclusions possibly be real?" before running or broadcasting the story.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   
It's funny how many people jump to blame the Fukushima mess for large scale ocean die-offs while completely neglecting the dumping of industrial and human waste into rivers. Where do you think that stuff goes? It's a pretty rampant practice in South and Central America, and all up and down the coast of China and other parts of Asia. U.S. and Australia aren't out of the picture either with agricultural runoff on a massive scale. And then there's overfishing which upsets other aspects of ecology.

But yeah, while all that goes on, one unfortunate incident where the strongest effects are localized is what a lot of people think is messing up the whole Pacific. Too many worries regarding trace levels of radiation while neglecting disruptive changes in pH levels and oxygen content. Personally I believe there is a problem that's wrecking our oceans. But on the scale of things Fukushima is one tiny itty-bitty aspect. The one that needs to be fixed (and soon) being overlooked is the one right in our own backyards.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   
What a horribly misleading article. Based in part on a National Geographic article that does not even mention radiation due to a random poster in comments. The idea radiation is involved is plucked out of thin air.

I'll remember to avoid that Blog.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Japan still has fresh seafood being sold everyday, but somehow is to blame for California's coast seafood die out? I don't buy it.

In fact, a simple search lead me to see that America's westcoast has it's own nuclear disasters to worry about instead of doom porning Fuku everyday.




The disaster at Fukushima has raised questions around the world about nuclear safety. But contamination is much worse in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. The former plutonium plant in Hanford, Washington is one of the most contaminated places on earth, and still decades from being cleaned up.




Check these out.

www.spiegel.de...


and this

abclocal.go.com.../local/ventura_county&id=8018106
edit on 1/4/2014 by intelligenthoodlum33 because: quote add



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Is this a best guess estimate or have people actually seen this 98% covered floor?
If so, where are the photos and movies?

GO PRO's PEOPLE!



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Everyone needs to read this statement.
Fact: Japan is most likely leaking at least 300 tons of highly radioactive water into the ocean everyday
Fact: Japan is not trucking in new water. They are recycling seawater to try to cool down the (location unknown) reactor cores. Thus creating water that is already radioactive, even more so, since its being recycled, making it super radioactive.
Fact: Lets get rid of the "drop in the bucket theory" now! Its a lie and even someone with just an iota of intelligence can figure out why. Lets just for a second assume its only 300 tons of water daily leaking into the ocean. I bet its more but we wont go there.
This deadly water flows a specific route once it hits the ocean. It follows thermal currents and only goes so deep, because it cant sink past the cold thermal layer. Some of also will evaporate and get into the thermal AIR currents, also following a very specific route, which carries right over the inland of North America and probably several other countries.
A good analogy would be this. You have a swimming pool. In this pool, stretching from one end to the other end, is a tube thats only one inch wide. If you steadily fill this tube everyday with one drop of blue dye, this dye will make it to the other end of the pool in concentrated form, because its stays within the confines of the tube. The other end of this tube is the coast of the North America. This blue dye WILL make it to other side. Now do you people understand what is happening here?? Its not like this radioactive water is just dispersing in its entirety, into the entire pacific ocean! If you follow the currents, and do your measurements along these currents, this is where you will get the true picture.
Another gauge on how strong this radioactive water is, is just look at what happened to the sailors on the USS Ronald Regan. They arent doing so "hot" pun intended. They are vey sick and its a fact that some of them are filing lawsuits. Its a fact that the Regan was put out of commsion for 6 months while they decontainamated the ship. This ship was several hundred miles off the coast of Japan. So using the drop in a bucket theory, thats trillions of gallons of water between them and the plant, but yet the dosage they received would indicate they were directly in one of the currents. They were DRINKING this water via the desalination system on the ship. Im sure many more than the currently documented 60 sailors will get sick, all the way up to the Captain. The entire crew of the USS Ronald Regan pobably had their lives shortened by about 30 years.
Confirmation of this is the debris that showed up on the west coast of Japan. It didnt just float everywhere into the Pacific Ocean, because if it did we would never have seen it show up on the west coast. It followed a very specific path along the currents just like the radioactive water has done.
I hope this gets rid of the ridiculous argument that no matter how much radioactive water Japan leaks into the ocean, it wont matter because the pacific ocean is trillions of trillions of gallons.
Now once this water does get to the West Coast, it WILL disperse along theh coastal line, and may even completely wrap around the entire continet. But dont worry, the air currents will mke sure that its dispersed fairly onto the unsuspecting population that doesnt live along the coast.
edit on 5-1-2014 by ajdoha234 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Taking it seriously for a moment, the kill would probably be from the release of a large bubble of poisonous gas from underneath the sea floor, released possibly by even a relatively minor and ordinary tectonic event. The gas would be CO2, Methane, SO2, something like that. Such a release can kill most of the sea life over a large area. It might also not leave much of anything to eat up the free lunch on the sea floor so they'd be around for longer.

If they are unusually concentrated, it might be that they got moved around a bit somehow. On land, a flash flood might pick up a bunch of animals and carry them for a ways then tend to dump them all in the same place where they then begin to pile up because of the particular configuration of the terrain.

But maybe not. Deep under the sea I think wave action is generally not so strong. Maybe a 'death bubble' rising from the sea floor in the water column will kill enough straight above it which will fall more or less straight down to create such dense coverage on the floor below?

Or, perhaps rather than a 'death bubble' the tectonic event may have created an ongoing, gradual, large scale gas release which in turn created a 'column of death' from the floor area to the surface above it, where sea creatures would swim into the column and somewhat gradually drop dead, then fall ~straight down to cover the floor in that local area.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 06:57 AM
link   
ok, so whether it's Fukushima, and/or climate change, I think the point being made here quit crystal clear is that serious changes are being made.
Let's stop arguing over what is the problem, and let's focus on the solution.



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join