Scientists Confirm Fukushima Radiation in California Kelp

reply to post by Phage


Which article are you referring to Phage?

If its the OP title then I was under the impression with ATS t&c's that if using another site as source, the title has to match the Orginal title from source.

reply to post by MadMaxZombie

Ok.
Now, which of those links actually sources results from Kelp Watch?

reply to post by flammadraco

The one you linked in your post which I replied to.

reply to post by Phage


According to this news source from 2012, radiation was already being found at elevated levels in Kelp. If that is true then I'm pretty sure they would have matched the isotopes of radiation to its source nearly two years later?

abcnews.go.com... lifornia%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D6%26ved%3D0CDkQFjAF%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fabcnews.go.com%252Fblogs%252Fhealth%252F2012%252F04%252F10%252Fradiation -from-japan-disaster-found-along-calif-coast%252F%26ei%3DSrP2UpDpKeWV7Abfw4AI%26usg%3DAFQjCNGhhyD5SzYBnak_Ugb3kmjmPgv03g%26sig2%3DrhNIyeTFkNkLnHgwmjDR yQ%26bvm%3Dbv.60983673%2Cd.ZGU

Is ABC news an acceptable source? 

reply to post by flammadraco

Did you also notice that the MSM got caught up in thinking that Amazon.com was preparing to ship via drone? The MSM often makes mistakes and runs with BS.

Here is a thought, do some research and stop just reading news articles. Research the people behind the opinions, research who pays them, research something for yourself. Citing an article somewhere is not research. Finding out who wrote it and why, is.

reply to post by flammadraco

That study is from 2012. It is about about radioactive iodine carried by the atmosphere. Not cesium carried by the ocean.

But it does show that kelp can be used as an effective means for detecting radiation levels. That's what Kelp Watch is actually about.

These (131)I levels represent a significant input into the kelp forest ecosystem. Canopy-forming kelps are a natural coastal dosimeter that can measure the exposure of the coastal environment to (131)I and perhaps other radioisotopes released from nuclear accidents. An organizational mechanism should be in place to ensure that they are sampled immediately and continuously after such releases.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Phage
reply to post by flammadraco

 

That study is from 2012. It is about about radioactive iodine carried by the atmosphere. Not cesium carried by the ocean.

But it does show that kelp can be used as an effective means for detecting radiation levels. That's what Kelp Watch is actually about.

These (131)I levels represent a significant input into the kelp forest ecosystem. Canopy-forming kelps are a natural coastal dosimeter that can measure the exposure of the coastal environment to (131)I and perhaps other radioisotopes released from nuclear accidents. An organizational mechanism should be in place to ensure that they are sampled immediately and continuously after such releases.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Phage, the second paragraph states that Cesium was also found, not just Iodine.

"Kelp along the California  coast was found to be contaminated with radioactive material from a nuclear plant damaged in the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan, according to a recent study.

Researchers at California State University, Long Beach  found that the kelp contained radioactive iodine, cesium, xenon and other particles at levels unlikely to be detrimental to human health  but much higher than the amounts measured before the disaster" 

If this is correct the the title of the OP is anything but sensationalist, it's actually two years to late.
  

reply to post by flammadraco

Yes. Well that's an odd thing for the article to say.

Here's what the study says.

Although we did not attempt to detect 137Cs in our kelp samples, it may have been present because it was also released in large quantities from the Fukushima plant, and traveled in the atmospheric plume.

www.usc.edu...

Phage
reply to post by flammadraco

 

Yes. Well that's an odd thing for the article to say.

Here's what the study says.

Although we did not attempt to detect 137Cs in our kelp samples, it may have been present because it was also released in large quantities from the Fukushima plant, and traveled in the atmospheric plume.

www.usc.edu...

edit on 2/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

My understanding of that quoted statement is they never set out to look for Cesium but it was present and they state it "MAY" have been present from the airborne Plume. They are hypothesising, just as we are.

reply to post by flammadraco


I wish there could be one Fukashima thread on this ... ' IDIOT PSYCHOPATHIC NUKE-HEADS DO IT AGAIN ! '

News at 11 ( or whenever there is any ). On Fantasy Island , a midget screams , ' THE PLUME , THE PLUME ! ' ... but , the damn thing never seems to get there .

Phage

I can't find anything about Kelp Watch finding evidence of cesium in kelp yet.

Would you agree that the source from the ABC article 2012 does show evidence that Cesium is in fact in US kelp?

Bazart
reply to post by flammadraco

 

I wish there could be one Fukashima thread on this ... ' IDIOT PSYCHOPATHIC NUKE-HEADS DO IT AGAIN ! '

News at 11 ( or whenever there is any ). On Fantasy Island , a midget screams , ' THE PLUME , THE PLUME ! ' ... but , the damn thing never seems to get there .

Not sure how to take your post. If your saying there is no evidence to this OP, then read the links. The evidence has been available since 2012 that radiation from Japan has already arrived on US shores either via the atmosphere or oceans.

reply to post by flammadraco

My understanding of that quoted statement is they never set out to look for Cesium but it was present and they state it "MAY" have been present from the airborne Plume.

Your understanding is lacking. Only iodine was tested for. If only iodine is tested for, only iodine is found.

Although we did not attempt to detect 137Cs in our kelp samples, it may have been present because it was also released in large quantities from the Fukushima plant, and traveled in the atmospheric plume.1,2

The statement says that cesium may have been present in the samples but it was not detected because it was not being looked for. The statement says that cesium was in the atmospheric plume. The study is also quite clear that the source was atmospheric, not the ocean.

reply to post by flammadraco

Would you agree that the source from the ABC article 2012 does show evidence that Cesium is in fact in US kelp?

I agree that the article says that. I don't agree that the study showed such evidence because the study was not looking for cesium.

The ABC article got the science wrong. Often the case when MSM gets a hold of science.

Phage
reply to post by flammadraco

 

My understanding of that quoted statement is they never set out to look for Cesium but it was present and they state it "MAY" have been present from the airborne Plume.

Your understanding is lacking. Only cesium was tested for. If only cesium is tested for, only cesium is found.

Although we did not attempt to detect 137Cs in our kelp samples, it may have been present because it was also released in large quantities from the Fukushima plant, and traveled in the atmospheric plume.1,2

The statement says that cesium may have been present in the samples but it was not detected because it was not being looked for. The statement says that cesium was in the atmospheric plume.

edit on 2/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

It does not say it was not detected at all Phage. It's said "we did not attempt to detect 137cs in our kelp samples" operative word "attempt" not "not detected" . The statement then goes onto to say "it may have been present because it was released in large quantities".

You have spun the statement in your view and I'm seeing the same statement saying something else. Perhaps I am wrong, but the fact is "Researchers at California State University, Long Beach  found that the kelp contained radioactive iodine, cesium, xenon and other particles at levels unlikely to be detrimental to human health  but much higher than the amounts measured before the disaster" 

You corrected me regarding Cesium, perhaps you know more about this than the average Joe, but explain to me why the researchers found, Iodine, Cesium and Xenon. If what you say is true then surely they were looking for just Cesium?

reply to post by flammadraco

The statement then goes onto to say "it may have been present because it was released in large quantities".

Read it one more time. It says cesium may have been present in the samples. They don't know if it was or not. They weren't looking for it.

We began sampling canopy blades from southern California and counting 131I gamma emissions in the dried tissue a month (April 15, 2011) after the first atmospheric release (March 14,2011).1

Iodine gamma emissions. Not cesium. Not xenon. BTW, do you think cesium traveled across the Pacific, through the ocean in a month?

it was also released in large quantities from the Fukushima plant, and traveled in the atmospheric plume.

The atmospheric plume contained cesium. It "was released." It "traveled in the plume." Not "it may have traveled in the plume."
Two references are provided for the existence of cesium in the atmospheric plume are provided.

You corrected me regarding Cesium, perhaps you know more about this than the average Joe, but explain to me why the researchers found, Iodine, Cesium and Xenon.

I miswrote. I corrected my post. They were only looking for iodine, as I said originally. They did not find cesium or xenon. They only found iodine.

reply to post by Phage


no, you're right about the "Kelp Watch" thing. even if numbers weren't posted yet, they will be. they will be tested on a regular basis from now on as well.

reply to post by drustyle

Thank you. I think you're really cool.
But, unfortunately, I'm not the topic and neither are you.

flammadraco
reply to post by Phage

 

What I have come to realise when discussing the Fukushima disaster is the complete media blackout on the subject. 

The silence on the matter speaks volumes to me. The amount of strange mass deaths in the last twelve months is staggering. Anyone who is not connecting the dots by now is never going to.

The mass fish die-offs aren't related to fukushima (well, maybe a few) otherwise how do you explain that land animals and birds are also dying in mass? The radiation is in the water and would only affect sea life and yet birds and land animals are dying off just as much as the fish.