Mysterious epidemic devastates starfish population off the Pacific Coast

Scientists are searching for clues to what’s been killing starfish up and down the West Coast. The mysterious die-offs were first noticed in Washington State.

That’s where KCTS Seattle has been partnering with the environmental public media project EarthFix to get to the bottom of the epidemic.

KATIE CAMPBELL: Something strange is happening in Seattle’s waters. Laura James was one of the first to notice. She alerted scientists when starfish began washing up on the shores near her home.

LAURA JAMES, diver/videographer: And I thought, you know what? This is getting a little too close for comfort. I need go see what’s going on and I need document it.

KATIE CAMPBELL: As a diver and underwater videographer, James was equipped to do something. She decided to take her camera to a spot popular among both divers and starfish. These pilings are usually covered with a rainbow of starfish. On a recent dive, James discovered a scene from a horror film.

LAURA JAMES: There were just bodies everywhere. And they were just like splats. To me, it always looked like somebody had taken a laser gun and just zapped them and they just vaporized.

KATIE CAMPBELL: Starfish, also known as sea stars, are wasting away by the tens of thousands, not just in Puget Sound, but up and down North America’s Pacific Coast. And nobody knows why.

LAURA JAMES: I have been diving out here for almost 24 years, and people always ask me, do you see any big difference between now and when you started?

And I have seen some subtle differences, but this is the change of my lifetime. We have had now occasional die-offs here and there, but it’s not like this. It’s not a mass mortality event.

I’m just a diver. I need to find out what the scientists know.

Hmmmm, very mysterious epidemic we have here, and scientists agree that is not from Fukushima


deepseanews.com...

www.pbs.org...

Holy crap. So very not good. Horrible horrible horrible. I don't even know what else to say.

They woke godzilla the penalty for that is..

reply to post by xavi1000

Hmmmm, very mysterious epidemic we have here, and scientists agree that is not from Fukushima

Sure they dooo… I like the way they do tooo…

From the first link:

True facts about Ocean Radiation and the Fukushima Disaster

True facts? Are there any other kind of facts? Reminds us in the first two words of the article title to just accept this as "real" truth.

I’m here to tell you that these posts are just plain garbage. While there are terrible things that happened around the Fukushima Power Plant in Japan; Alaska, Hawaii and the West Coast aren’t in any danger.

And thats a fact Jack (insert tongue between lips and blow). Although the article goes on to debunk every Enquirer like also no proof article as simple "scare tactics", they don't actually determine the cause of this "new" epidemic to Starfish? Anyone remember this same "mysteriousness" a while back and the actual proof of what killed those "melting" starfish?

Me neither. But of course the real proof it isn't caused by FUKU is lacking, too.

Whats that you say? Since radioactive elements bioaccumulate in living tissue and these poor little fishes shaped like stars dwell on the bottom and filter feed "nutrients" all day…

A "whole body count" of a bucket of their remains with a scintillator would be a good start.

In lieu of that we will just have to take their word for it, I guess. Wonder what they will say if people begin melting?

reply to post by intrptr


Sorry , i trust these sources more than (insert your sources). Please dont derail this thread with Fukushima , there is something else here.



SOURCES:

Behrens, Erik, et al. “Model simulations on the long-term dispersal of 137Cs released into the Pacific Ocean off Fukushima.” Environmental Research Letters 7.3 (2012): 034004.

Buesseler, Ken O., et al. “Fukushima-derived radionuclides in the ocean and biota off Japan.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109.16 (2012): 5984-5988.

Fisher, Nicholas S., et al. “Evaluation of radiation doses and associated risk from the Fukushima nuclear accident to marine biota and human consumers of seafood.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2013).

Nakano, Masanao, and Pavel P. Povinec. “Long-term simulations of the 137 Cs dispersion from the Fukushima accident in the world ocean.“ Journal of environmental radioactivity 111 (2012): 109-115.

Rossi, Vincent, et al. “Multi-decadal projections of surface and interior pathways of the Fukushima Cesium-137 radioactive plume.“ Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers (2013).

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution FAQ: Radiation from Fukushima

Explained: rad, rem, sieverts, becquerelsl. A guide to terminology about radiation exposure

I see you found it on reddit. It's been on ATS for a while: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Lynk3
I see you found it on reddit. It's been on ATS for a while: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Tnx, didnt see it.

reply to post by xavi1000

Sorry , i trust these sources more than (insert your sources). Please don't derail this thread with Fukushima , there is something else here.

The articles title has Fukushima in it. Your sources don't prove anything. Just show me the readout of nuclides not in starfish flesh…..

If I could find any of those reflecting the presence of radioactive fallout in the land, sea, sky, produce, critters or US, I would. But I can't. This documented information by objective, accredited, non-affiliated labs does not exist.

So your sources that state,

its the truth and everything else is garbage, wins by default.

People should take heed of the information blackout concerning the actual levels of Radioactivity around the world from Fukushima. No one has died? There are no Hot Spots? Hmmm…

reply to post by intrptr

More Fukushima scaremongering debunked

I like starfish, they are kinda cute. They are a necessary part of our Eco-system. Chemicals we have just recently started to use is my guess. It could take up to five years or so before they effect things. They recently changed the chemicals for treating forest fires from an inexpensive one to a new and improved version at many times the cost. I would put my bet on this new chemical causing this problem. There could be other reasons, but I feel this new chemical is used in high enough amounts that the blowing chemical or the chemical created by it's use on the fire could be enough to do this. Just because a chemical is deemed safe, it doesn't mean the changed chemistry after going through a fire full of chemicals of the burning trees and mosses/fungi is still safe.

Just pee on a campfire or sauna stove and see how many people go running.

Meh, just cut up all the starfish you see. Instantly quadruple the size of the population. Seriously, many of them can grow off of 1 arm into a whole new creature.

Besides, I thought we wanted LESS starfish?

Australia's Great Barrier Reef has lost 50% of its coral since the mid-1980s, much of that because of a ravenous species of starfish that can each consume some 12 square yards (10 square meters) of coral in a year, scientists reported Tuesday.

According to a study by the Australian government's Institute of Marine Sciences and the University of Wollongong, the coral cover on the world's largest coral reef ecosystem suffered damage from tropical cyclones (48%), the crown-of-thorns starfish (42%), and coral bleaching (10%).

reply to post by xavi1000


Of course it has nothing to do with Fukushima especially since government funded "scientists" have said so. It would be foolish to think that of tons of radioactive water being pumped into the Pacific ocean on a daily basis would affect the life-forms that live there.

Radiation has absolutely no effect on any organisms from the planktonic level all the way to the "big fish". Anyone who even considers this theory is obviously incapable of critical thinking and should be automatically dismissed as a crazy conspiracy theorist

Shame...

reply to post by xavi1000

Please dont derail this thread with Fukushima , there is something else here.

Although the cause of this could certainly be related to something other than Fukushima, mentioning Fukushima is not derailing the thread as in my opinion it is a likely candidate. Just because you state in your OP that "scientists agree" that it is not Fukushima related does not mean that we cannot debate that possibility.

These "scientists" have been wrong before...

I lived on an Island in the Pacific for 12 years right where this is happening and never once seen a melting starfish, the orca survival rate was much higher then too.

I cannot state with any certainty what may be causing this but another possibility could be sonar usage from naval exercises as we know they affect whales and other fish, so maybe starfish too?

My bet is still on Fukushima though, sadly we will never know until it is too late... heck...it's already too late.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed

Anyone who even considers this theory is obviously incapable of critical thinking and should be automatically dismissed as a crazy conspiracy theorist

I dismiss you you you "crazy conspiracy theorist".

You don't need to see any evidence.

These are not the rads you are looking for.

You may go about your business.

Move along..

reply to post by CynicalDrivel


The problem with that, CynicalDrivel (aptly named, btw) is that these sick and dying starfish are ripping themselves apart and their limbs are not growing back.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Now, THAT is abnormal. Same general area, only 1-2 hundred years ago, they were having a problem with overpopulation of starfish shutting down the clam industry.

And they were creating their own problem by cutting up the starfish, and they were regrowing.

So, the next wonder, for me, would be: how is the clamming going?

reply to post by CynicalDrivel


From what I can tell, clam populations, specifically the Pacific razor clam, are doing well and the upcoming clam season is suspected to be strong. Makes sense due to the relationship with starfish--nature abhors a vaccum and being shelled, they're probably more resilient against certain environmental pressures.

www.seafoodwatch.org...
www.thenewstribune.com...

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Well, I assume that y'all test the clams like we do the oysters, right? If there's something specifically toxic to humanity in them, we could check them easily.

And it could be a good thing, in the long run. (Not because I want the starfish to die.)

Big fish in the Pacific aren't all that safe to eat, due to radiation, last I heard. And I wanted to make Tuna Salad, lol.

Down in the gulf, you have to worry about how much mercury you're getting (although I'm still eating shrimp: lower food chain), due to having the waste of the breadbasket emptying into the Gulf via the Mississippi. BP's oil spill is no longer as much an issue (the dispersant: the oil wasn't near as dangerous).

An increase in what we can harvest from the oceans, after a fairly cold winter on the east coast, may well be a big benefit.