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.

 

First results from crowdfunded study shows radioactive seawater from Fukushima has NOT reached the U

page: 5
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   

game over man
reply to post by flammadraco
 


I made threads debunking all of that.

2nd line...


What have you debunked? The news sources from the last two weeks or the fact that the plankton in the Pacific Ocean are intelligent enough to stay away from the shores of northern Japan?

You could have at least provide links to your threads.

You know something guys, I only made a one thread on this subject yesterday and the way some people have acted towards me and anyone else that ask questions regarding the "Offical Line" is astonishing. It has made me more likely to keep digging for further info on this incident. I've been accused of being a "Right Wing Climate Denier", spreading rumours of Doom Porn amongst other things. Is this how you guys deal with those that question and may have opposing views?




posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by flammadraco
 


But they are part of a food chain, their eggs are eaten by Crustaceans amongst other animals, these are then eaten by other animals further up the food chain.
The "bottom feeders" around Fukushima consume other sea life from the region exclusively. They don't move around a lot, they eat what is there.

Yes, pelagic species consume sea life from the region as well, but not exclusively. When they are in the Fukushima region they may eat a contaminated fish or so. But when they are traveling (which is what they do most of the time) they are not eating contaminated fish. The contamination levels in pelagic species does not continue to increase. It does, in fact, decrease because the fish metabolise the contaminated materials. When they stop eating contaminated fish, the level of contamination in pelagic fish decreases.

The levels of contamination of non bottom feeding fish caught in the waters around Fukushima has been declining. The levels of contamination of fish caught in the eastern Pacific has not been increasing. If you want to continue to arm wave about it feel free but you are doing so based on a lack of evidence rather than the existence of any.
www.pri.org...

Oh, your source? This one?

Fish caught in waters near the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant have been detected 124 times highly radioactive than the accepted limit, a report by the Asahi Shimbun said.

That was one fish. One fish out of 37 caught and tested. 2 more of them had levels exceeding safety levels but far below that single fish. The rest were within safety levels.

Because seabream is a bottom feeder, fishing for them is prohibited in the Fukushima region.
ajw.asahi.com...

edit on 2/10/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



 Yes, pelagic species consume sea life from the region as well, but not exclusively. When they are in the Fukushima region they may eat a contaminated fish or so. But when they are traveling (which is what they do most of the time) they are not eating contaminated fish. The contamination levels in pelagic species does not continue to increase. It does, in fact, decrease because the fish metabolise the contaminated materials. When they stop eating contaminated fish, the level of contamination in pelagic fish decreases.


Can you provide me a link to prove that sea life in the Pacific Ocean "Metabolise the contaminated materials"? I never knew any living thing could metabolise radioactive material.

What about Plankton and other forms of sea life at the bottom of the food chain? 


. One fish out of 37 caught and tested. 2 more of them had levels exceeding safety levels but far below that single fish. The rest were within safety levels.


One fish to many. Are you honestly saying that that was the only fish that was contaminated in the area? 

It seems you try to debunk any evidence given to you. At what point will you accept that this is a real issue. Fish with three eyes?

You also never commented on the increase in cancer cases in humans from my post.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   

flammadraco
reply to post by Phage
 



 Yes, pelagic species consume sea life from the region as well, but not exclusively. When they are in the Fukushima region they may eat a contaminated fish or so. But when they are traveling (which is what they do most of the time) they are not eating contaminated fish. The contamination levels in pelagic species does not continue to increase. It does, in fact, decrease because the fish metabolise the contaminated materials. When they stop eating contaminated fish, the level of contamination in pelagic fish decreases.


Can you provide me a link to prove that sea life in the Pacific Ocean "Metabolise the contaminated materials"? I never knew any living thing could metabolise radioactive material.

What about Plankton and other forms of sea life at the bottom of the food chain? 


. One fish out of 37 caught and tested. 2 more of them had levels exceeding safety levels but far below that single fish. The rest were within safety levels.


One fish to many. Are you honestly saying that that was the only fish that was contaminated in the area? 

It seems you try to debunk any evidence given to you. At what point will you accept that this is a real issue. Fish with three eyes?

You also never commented on the increase in cancer cases in humans from my post.



You are correct about the metabolizing of radionuclides when they are ingested....some will pass through the body fairly quickly, they are used in medical tests daily all around the world. But others, such as Strontium 90, (which Tepco just announced that a sample from July 2013 actually contained 5,000,000 bq per liter rather than the 900,000 they had previously announced) like to find a nice little cozy home in the teeth and bones.... where it stays for decades happily irradiating nearby cells.

Radiation does bio accumulate....there are numerous studies that have been done on this very topic.
edit on R422014-02-10T14:42:22-06:00k422Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by RickinVa
 


You seem to know about this, so can I ask you a question?

The kind of radiation leaking from Fukishima into the ocean daily, would this radiation metabolise out of the body or stay in the animals bone and teeth? What effect does this radiation have on Plankton?



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by flammadraco
 


Can you provide me a link to prove that sea life in the Pacific Ocean "Metabolise the contaminated materials"? I never knew any living thing could metabolise radioactive material.
Of course radioactive material can be metabolised. Do you think there is something magical about it? The only difference between it and non-radioactive material is that it undergoes spontaneous nuclear decay and emits high energy particles.

The efflux rate constant of Cs-137 in fishes following uptake from the dissolved and dietary phases ranged between 0.020 and 0.023 d(-1). The higher efflux rate in marine fishes compared to those in freshwater fishes may have been due to the ionic regulation in marine teleosts (e.g., high excretion rate to counteract the high ambient K+ concentration).
spfind.ust.hk...


What about Plankton and other forms of sea life at the bottom of the food chain?
What about them?


One fish to many. Are you honestly saying that that was the only fish that was contaminated in the area?
Quite clearly I didn't say that. It's 3% of the fish caught. But yes it is "one too many." That's why fishing for them is prohibited in the region.


It seems you try to debunk any evidence given to you. At what point will you accept that this is a real issue.
What evidence? Sensationalized "news" reports?


You also never commented on the increase in cancer cases in humans from my post.
I wouldn't be at all surprised that cancer rates in the Fukushima region will show an increase in the future. But I'm not sure that the reported cases reflect an increase or that they can be attributed to the disaster, nor do any scientists seem to be making that connection as yet.

edit on 2/10/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   

flammadraco
reply to post by RickinVa
 


You seem to know about this, so can I ask you a question?

The kind of radiation leaking from Fukishima into the ocean daily, would this radiation metabolise out of the body or stay in the animals bone and teeth? What effect does this radiation have on Plankton?


I am by no means any kind of expert. Strontium 90 is known as "The Boneseeker" because its similar in properties with calcium... once in a body, the body treats it as calcium and it goes to the bones and teeth. Some radionuclides are more of a concern than others because of the way they act once they are in a body. I think most experts will agree that releasing Strontium 90 into the food chain is a very bad idea.

If you look at the data released by Tepco, they lump all of the beta emitters (Strontium 90 is one) into a single group. The 5 million bq a liter is only counting Strontium 90..... there are a lot more beta emitters than just Strontium 90, so the figure of 5,000,000 bq a liter is actually a low figure.
edit on R072014-02-10T15:07:19-06:00k072Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R082014-02-10T15:08:23-06:00k082Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by RickinVa
 




Radiation does bio accumulate....there are numerous studies that have been done on this very topic.

Yes, if the primary food source is contaminated the influx will exceed the efflux. That's why the seabream in the Fukushima region cannot be fished. Their primary food source is found on the bottom of the ocean in that region.

The primary food source of pelagic fish which reach the eastern Pacific is not the bottom of the ocean in the Fukushima region.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by flammadraco
 


Sorry fellow ATSer, I'm not trying to talk down upon you.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

^My thread on the RT article....

Cheers



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thanks for the extra info, can you comment on what RickinVa has said about radiation in the food chain?


You are correct about the metabolizing of radionuclides when they are ingested....some will pass through the body fairly quickly, they are used in medical tests daily all around the world. But others, such as Strontium 90, (which Tepco just announced that a sample from July 2013 actually contained 5,000,000 bq per liter rather than the 900,000 they had previously announced) like to find a nice little cozy home in the teeth and bones.... where it stays for decades happily irradiating nearby cells.


It's my understanding that it was only in the last couple of weeks that TEPCO announced the increase on its previous readings. Very trustworthy source of information.

The Plankton question is asking what effect does this radiation have on them. They are one of the most important aspects of the oceans food chain. Can they be irradiated if swimming through these contaminated areas?
edit on 10.2.2014 by flammadraco because: (no reason given)

edit on 10.2.2014 by flammadraco because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by RickinVa
 




Radiation does bio accumulate....there are numerous studies that have been done on this very topic.

Yes, if the primary food source is contaminated the influx will exceed the efflux. That's why the seabream in the Fukushima region cannot be fished. Their primary food source is found on the bottom of the ocean in that region.

The primary food source of pelagic fish which reach the eastern Pacific is not the bottom of the ocean in the Fukushima region.


But these fish have natrual predators further up the food chain and so a cycle would begin.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by flammadraco
 





But these fish have natrual predators further up the food chain and so a cycle would begin.

No. The "cycle" only occurs at the source of the contamination. The farther from the source, the less contamination. Far enough from the source and the influx is less than the efflux so the level of contamination in the predators will decline, not increase.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   

flammadraco

Phage
reply to post by RickinVa
 




Radiation does bio accumulate....there are numerous studies that have been done on this very topic.

Yes, if the primary food source is contaminated the influx will exceed the efflux. That's why the seabream in the Fukushima region cannot be fished. Their primary food source is found on the bottom of the ocean in that region.

The primary food source of pelagic fish which reach the eastern Pacific is not the bottom of the ocean in the Fukushima region.


But these fish have natrual predators further up the food chain and so a cycle would begin.


True... but the vast majority would be localized to the immediate area around the Fukushima NPP..... there are migratory fish that pass through the area, so they would bio accumulate as well, but no where near the level of the species that live there constantly.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by flammadraco
 





But these fish have natrual predators further up the food chain and so a cycle would begin.

No. The "cycle" only occurs at the source of the contamination. The farther from the source, the less contamination. Far enough from the source and the influx is less than the efflux so the level of contamination in the predators will decline, not increase.


But...... Strontium 90 does stay in the system in the bones and teeth. Surely say for example the plankton were irradiated and a whale ate the plankton, then the radiation would stay in the whale and would build up the more it ate.

You started saying the radiation material would only stay at the bottom of the sea bed, but when asked about the effects of the food chain, you now say its localised and would not spread any further. The next logical step would be that other sea life passing through, perhaps on their annual migration paths (3 years, 3 trips), have eaten food from this area and if contaminated with Strontium 90 would stay in the system of the animal.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   

game over man
reply to post by flammadraco
 


Sorry fellow ATSer, I'm not trying to talk down upon you.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

^My thread on the RT article....

Cheers


I never provided a link from RT on the test of fish. For your ease, here is the link I provided you. au.ibtimes.com...



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by flammadraco
 

First, the strontium levels being talked about were in the waste water, not the ocean. Obviously strontium was released initially and with the leakage which is ongoing, continues to be released though the level of contamination reaching the ocean is unknown. The trouble is monitoring strontium levels is difficult.

But we do know this. Even with the leakage, cesium levels in fish and seawater have been declining. There is no reason to think that would not be the case with strontium.

But you want to know about fish in the eastern Pacific. Strontium levels are low, well below safety limits. Now, if the pelagic fish which were exposed to the contamination at Fukushima repeatedly returned to Fukushima to feed those levels could increase. But whether or not those fish survive long enough to make enough round trips...I don't know but I think it's doubtful.

If leaks of strontium-90 continue, this radionuclide could become a larger concern in small fish such as sardines, which are often eaten whole. So far, however, evidence suggests that levels in fish of strontium-90 remains much lower than that of cesium-137.
www.whoi.edu...

I've said it before. I'm not worried about fish caught in local waters.

edit on 2/10/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Mamatus
 


Recently (with in a year). The EPA Raised the levels at which radiation is save to humans in the united states, so technically it could still be over there original levels. If you ask me Japans is radiation levels are more logical.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jashn20002000
 




The EPA Raised the levels at which radiation is save to humans in the united states

Do you have a source for this statement?



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by flammadraco
 


Ah man you made me click your link for nothing. RT came out with the article first. Same thing.



posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by flammadraco
 

I just found this report showing very low levels of strontium in fish from the Fukushima region.
www.jfa.maff.go.jp...



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join