NOAA officials: “We don’t know what’s going on in the environment..."

a reply to: pl3bscheese

I disagree. Having watched Japanese debris hit our beaches, what happened at Fukushima is now an "event" for others around the globe. If the debris has radiation emissions, it stands to reason so would any water surrounding it would be irradiated, as would those creatures living in the vanity of floating debris.
A LOT of people's lives were caught in that tsunami and swept into the Pacific.
Fishermen catch those fish and...there you go.

But, for my area beaches, we don't see millions of dead fish on our shores. Just a chair, a pair of unmatched shoes, and other random household items.

a reply to: Profusion

I have offered a source, but you're incapable of comprehending it, apparently. That's not my issue. It matters not to what degree I go into details, you'll not understand them.

So I will *sigh* and trust more astute members do their due diligence and come to a reasonable understanding.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Profusion

I have offered a source, but you're incapable of comprehending it, apparently. That's not my issue. It matters not to what degree I go into details, you'll not understand them.

So I will *sigh* and trust more astute members do their due diligence and come to a reasonable understanding.

You provided a useless link, and a cop out.

Yeah, I agree. Watered down thread.

originally posted by: Tucket

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Profusion

I have offered a source, but you're incapable of comprehending it, apparently. That's not my issue. It matters not to what degree I go into details, you'll not understand them.

So I will *sigh* and trust more astute members do their due diligence and come to a reasonable understanding.

You provided a useless link, and a cop out.

Yeah, I agree. Watered down thread.

Watered down is right.
The article said they found 1 irradiated fish. Not exactly earth shattering.

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Tucket

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Profusion

I have offered a source, but you're incapable of comprehending it, apparently. That's not my issue. It matters not to what degree I go into details, you'll not understand them.

So I will *sigh* and trust more astute members do their due diligence and come to a reasonable understanding.

You provided a useless link, and a cop out.

Yeah, I agree. Watered down thread.

Watered down is right.
The article said they found 1 irradiated fish. Not exactly earth shattering.

Maybe that was the last fish left..

Kidding...I'l go back to sleep now.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Speaking of watered down, we have seen melt downs before but not right next to an ocean with known runoff of cooling water. Not saying the end of the world but some ramifications are expected in my mind.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
You're asking to prove a negative. It's illogical.

Look, the "bioaccumulation" makes no sense, either. The amount of radiation in the whole of the FUKU facility is incapable of bioaccumulating in the world's oceans to any considerable degree. You can't get exact figures for the sum total, but looking from one figure to the next gives you a general idea. When you compare even the high estimates to the amount of natural radiation in the oceans, you realize it's a complete joke to think this can impact the world's oceans in a measurable way. It can't.

What you're missing is scales, and perspective. Yes, some fish right next to FUKU, a tiny area compared to the whole of the earth, can be irradiated to a marked degree. Yes, if larger animals are stupid enough to eat them, they will push it through the food chain. No, you wouldn't see this on the other side of the world hitting whole clusters of animals. It makes no sense.

Any 'heavy' metal 'bioaccumulates' and radioisotopes are 'heavy' metals.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
You're asking to prove a negative. It's illogical.

Look, the "bioaccumulation" makes no sense, either. The amount of radiation in the whole of the FUKU facility is incapable of bioaccumulating in the world's oceans to any considerable degree. You can't get exact figures for the sum total, but looking from one figure to the next gives you a general idea. When you compare even the high estimates to the amount of natural radiation in the oceans, you realize it's a complete joke to think this can impact the world's oceans in a measurable way. It can't.

What you're missing is scales, and perspective. Yes, some fish right next to FUKU, a tiny area compared to the whole of the earth, can be irradiated to a marked degree. Yes, if larger animals are stupid enough to eat them, they will push it through the food chain. No, you wouldn't see this on the other side of the world hitting whole clusters of animals. It makes no sense.

Any 'heavy' metal 'bioaccumulates' and radioisotopes are 'heavy' metals.

Where did he say to the contrary?
He did say that there is not enough nuclear material at the fuku facility to contaminate the ocean to any considerable degree.

a reply to: Caver78

Fack!

According to the Alaska Dispatch, since mid-July, more than 60 dead and 75 diseased seals have been found with skin lesions and hair loss in the Arctic and Bering Strait regions of Alaska. In addition, scientists with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported several diseased and dead walruses in their fall survey this year, and the walruses were also found with skin sores and patchy hair loss.

This definitely sounds like radiation poison and I feel sick to my stomach

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
You're asking to prove a negative. It's illogical.

Look, the "bioaccumulation" makes no sense, either. The amount of radiation in the whole of the FUKU facility is incapable of bioaccumulating in the world's oceans to any considerable degree. You can't get exact figures for the sum total, but looking from one figure to the next gives you a general idea. When you compare even the high estimates to the amount of natural radiation in the oceans, you realize it's a complete joke to think this can impact the world's oceans in a measurable way. It can't.

What you're missing is scales, and perspective. Yes, some fish right next to FUKU, a tiny area compared to the whole of the earth, can be irradiated to a marked degree. Yes, if larger animals are stupid enough to eat them, they will push it through the food chain. No, you wouldn't see this on the other side of the world hitting whole clusters of animals. It makes no sense.

I get the feeling you have no idea what you're talking about.

a reply to: Talorc

It's the "if larger animals are stupid enough to eat contaminated fish" part which makes this poster lose all credibility.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Talorc

It's the "if larger animals are stupid enough to eat contaminated fish" part which makes this poster lose all credibility.

I caught that bit of scientific brilliance myself. Like these animals can detect invisible, radioactive nucleotide particles and decide their food source they have eaten their whole life has been too irradiated from the Fuku disaster. That is some amazing stuff for animals with no lab or lab experience.

a reply to: Profusion

please with cheese and yourself are able to argue your points. I tend toward pwc's POV.

BUT, the radiation being released is going to generate mutations. While most will be benign, the more aggressive forms may be TOO unexpected. The biome can adapt to just about anything (including a complete lack of us) but the sharper changes can impoverish diversity which has been the measure of environmental health.

ELEs (Extinction Level Events) may not arrive in a big box delivered to Earth's door. Tumors can grow from small irritations.

Dose rates from 134,137Cs were highest in demersal species with sediment-associated food chains and feeding behaviors. In addition to 134,137CCs, the radionuclide 90]Sr was estimated to contribute up to approximately one-half of the total 2013 dose rate to fish near the FDNPP. Mesopelagic fish 100–200 km east of the FDNPP, coastal fish in the Aleutian Islands (3300 km), and trans-Pacific migratory species all had increased dose rates as a consequence of the FDNPP accident, but their total dose rates remained dominated by background radionuclides. A hypothetical human consumer of 50 kg of fish, gathered 3 km from the FDNPP in 2013, would have received a total committed effective dose of approximately 0.95 mSv a–1 from combined FDNPP and ambient radionuclides, of which 0.13 mSv a–1 (14%) was solely from the FDNPP radionuclides and below the 1 mSv a–1 benchmark for public exposure.

Radiological Dose Rates to Marine Fish from the Fukushima Daiichi Accident: The First Three Years Across the North Pacific

A 14% increase in radionuclides might or might not be enough to drive what is being seen in pacific animals, but I'm sure it can't be helping things any.

Plus, you have to account for the fact that seal and stick animals will be consuming much more fish than a human so their dose rates would be correspondingly higher.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: pl3bscheese

So I guess the world can actually afford a few more melt downs
with no worries? And all our previous fears we had towards
melt downs were completely unwarrented. In fact, according to
you sea life in the pacific is dying from paranoia? Or am I on
the wrong page?

The fish aren't glowing yet, so yes we can afford a few more. /sarcasm

WTF! does it take for the complacency in the world to end, and people to stand up to large corporate and government interest?

Nuclear power was flawed from the start and the experts knew it, yet big money interests didn't give a squat.

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: pl3bscheese

So I guess the world can actually afford a few more melt downs
with no worries? And all our previous fears we had towards
melt downs were completely unwarrented. In fact, according to
you sea life in the pacific is dying from paranoia? Or am I on
the wrong page?

The fish aren't glowing yet, so yes we can afford a few more. /sarcasm

WTF! does it take for the complacency in the world to end, and people to stand up to large corporate and government interest?

Nuclear power was flawed from the start and the experts knew it, yet big money interests didn't give a squat.

What are you so worried about?
We just gave iran our blessing and financial means to have nuclear power. How dangerous can it be?

www.adn.com...

Funny, there is not a single mention of Fukushima or radiation in that entire article.

The fear you got was from enenews, which is inhabited by nut jobs and psychopaths who claim that we should of all been dead 3 years ago. Enenews occasionally has some good info, but you must follow the links back to their original source and completely ignore the doomsday spin that enenews tries to put on everything.

Do yourself a favor, research stuff and definitely do not rely on enenews and especially the stuff that the wacko's post there.

Saying Fukashima cannot be to blame for any recent die off is a stretch. Saying Fukashima is a world ender is a bigger stretch. If you collected all the radioactive material from the first inch of sand in the entire pacific ocean and refined it, you would have many times the supply of radioactive material than the current world.


Facts:
We all have radiation from Fukashima, Chernobyl and weapon tests in our bodies. Combined its less than %1 increase of total radiation exposure.

Mass sea life die offs and land die offs have been occurring at higher rates since the Fukashima disater, but other factors cannot be ignored and a direct correlation cannot be made.

Radiation can also have positive effects for bacteria, increasing their reproductive rates and increasing their accumulation.

The average mercury in tuna will kill you before the average bio accumulation of radiation. Though one fish with extreme levels could give you life time consequences.

To summarize my stance, the world itself may not be on fire but I think most will since the "smoke" rolling off the beach of northern Japan.

Nothing radioactive in my post...

I find it intreguing that throughout the millenia of human existance we have never known what is going on in the environment.

Even today scientists only grasp the knowledge that they have in the data before them. Nothing more.

I cant expect any agency to proclaim they know exactly whats going on. It would be foolish.

Lets not blame it solely on a failed power plant. Instead lets also consider the bigger fish...

The zillions of tons of plastics and trash and pollution floating around a giant ocean that is slowly warming up with the atmosphere.

You can toss in some rads and curies, but I would be willing to wager it isnt the primary cause, and in fact, is a very small addition to the overall problem.

a reply to: blindprometheus

Here's another bit of wisdom from a humble man.

“The release of atomic power has changed everything except our way of thinking ... the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker. (1945)”

― Albert Einstein