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

a reply to: Profusion

This is a clear example that the elites of this world really don't worry about the environment. When they make speeches on how "we need to save the environment" they always have a hidden agenda. This sort of problem, alongside the plastic island in the Pacific should be the real problems we should tackle, instead of going after a gas needed by nature and all living creatures in this planet to live.

a reply to: Profusion

This is NOT climate change related, regardless of how many government agencies attempt to write it off as such. With the exception of the walrus, these marine mammals found ill are in waters still considerably cooler that the waters along the Baja and California coast where they also reside. It would make no sense, for example, to assume that the ocean temperature increases recorded around Alaska, which are still considerably cooler waters than off Baja, would have a negative impact on the harbor seals here when the exact same species thrives along the entire SW coastline of North America.

I don't know if Fukushima is behind this. I admit that I catch and eat a LOT of salmon in my home waters around AK. I have not noticed anything unusual in these fish. If anything, this year's haul has looked wonderful. The one thing I have noticed, has been fewer round worms in the salmon that in recent years... I do not know if that's a good or bad indicator, as the worms don't really harm salmon, they just live in the intestinal tracts. I haven't noticed any increase or decrease in the nematodes in halibut this year, so maybe it's just a good year for roundworms. I did have one fish which had something I've never seen before. I caught a steelhead that still had sea lice (meaning it came right off the ocean) and had all of its scales raised up considerably along with foamy mucus along both sides. That I know of, there is no disease or infection that causes that. Needless to say, I released that fish.

Yeah, they do protest to much. They have the data... they just do not care.

a reply to: Profusion

Not downplaying the Fukushima contamination, but this is much more widespread than the Alaska coast. This is a worldwide problem. These die offs have been happening everywhere from oceans to lakes to rivers throughout the globe. It's global warming, pure and simple. Fukushima radiation isn't going to cause birds to fall out of the sky...or hundreds of elk to drop dead in one area at the same time...or thousands of fish to wash ashore in small rivers in China or Brazil or the USA. It's happening everywhere and yes, I agree with you...we all need to wake up!

Something I've noticed in the northwoods of Wisconsin here this year that I've never seen before is dead crows on the sides of the road. Crows don't get hit by cars so these birds are not victims of roadkill and this summer (over the past two months) I have now seen 10 different dead black birds along the side of the road in different areas, not hit by cars, but dead anyways and I've spent my whole life here and don't recall ever seeing dead crows on the side of the road. For some reason these birds are dying up here and everyone is hush hush about it.

a reply to: Rezlooper

you are absolutely right,and the naysayers will have no choice but to wake up to the fact that we are in the beginnings of a massive die off. scary as it sounds everyone will be forced to face it.

a reply to: Rezlooper

I think it's both. Or rather, all the # is hitting the fan at the same time. Pretty depressing this is how it all ends.

All environmental changes and prognostications thereof are derived from computer modelling predicated upon the input of collated information.

That is to say, if environmental changes do not have historically associated data present in the computer modelling programs used to infer what is occurring presently or in the future, the systems availed cannot calculate outcomes with any reasonable accuracy. Therefore, we know nothing.

Computers need input in order to produce output -- there is no "A.I." (...yet). All else is conjecture. That is why 'global warming' is sometimes seen as a feeling around in the dark - giving strength to the arm of 'flat earther' climate change deniers who parrot mendacious fossil fuel purveyor rhetoric - because the science-based augury is comprised of many in-flux variables that we have not [analytically] observed before; much less could be expected to be comprehended by F-750 driving, Maccas munching / foam container / fag butt littering, tyre burning, forest felling, waterways polluting, environment pillaging... human parasites.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Can't be bothered right now? You are the one making the claim, back it up, especially if you already did the work. I'm interested in what you have to say.

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 I don't get is coal power has been much worse than nuclear and nobody is screaming to shut it down or clean up its act. It's even belching more radioactive particles and I can still hear a pin drop.

That's why you guys lose credibility with me.

If accidents are taken into account, nuclear probably exposes the world to more radioactive particles. I'm not 100% on this because research shows if there're no nuclear accidents then coal power....
www.scientificamerican.com - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste ...

Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.

So why does coal waste appear so radioactive? It's a matter of comparison: The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plants—they're just somewhat higher for the coal ones. "You're talking about one chance in a billion for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's one in 10 million to one in a hundred million for coal plants."

BUT lets say Chernobyl and Fukushima and other nuclear accidents dwarf the small gap between NPPs and CPPs, making NPPs clearly emitting more radioactive waste into the Earth's global environment. The problem then becomes that NPP is still far safer than coal. Even the worst estimates for the Chernobyl disaster do not change this fact. Coal power is a mega killer of humans:
www.theguardian.com - European coal pollution causes 22,300 premature deaths a year, study shows ...
www.fool.com - Why the Safest Form of Power Is Also the Most Feared...
www.newscientist.com - Fossil fuels are far deadlier than nuclear power...
www.rmi.org - Estimated health effects from U.S. coal-fired power plant emissions...

So for the US alone there were 20,000 people or more dying per year routinely in the mid to late 20th century. Now that figure might have fallen to below 10,000 per year in the US thanks to clean air (clean coal) regulations. But what about in China? What about elsewhere? The deaths were and are much higher! I've seen estimates around ~300,000 deaths per year in China.

Looking at Chernobyle, estimated deaths are anywhere from 4,000 to 1,000,0000. Most government sources place it on the very low end. The 'Linear No Threshold' (LNT) model produces 60,000 deaths. Mainstream estimates vary from 30,000 to as high as 93,000. But even if we go high and say 93,000 people died as result of Chernobyl, that pales in comparison to the estimated ~300,000 dying per year in China from coal power. Just 10 years of coal in the US, between 1990 and 2000, probably resulted in the deaths of AT LEAST 100,000 people in the US, but probably higher, since that assumes 10,000 deaths per year and the estimates are actually almost double that.

So ok maybe coal has killed more, but what if nuclear was used as much as coal? Would that mean 2 or 3 more Chernobyls? Might that mean nuclear is worse? Well I cannot answer this question thoroughly and honestly, but given what I know, I'm confident nuclear would still be safer. There're just too many deaths from coal. And coal also presents another big problem: CO2 emissions.

If that doesn't convince you, why not read what NASA thinks:
climate.nasa.gov - Coal and gas are far more harmful than nuclear power ...

Want to add NASA's assessment--directly linked above this post in my previous one--of energy sources did NOT include power generating practices in China or developing countries, where we know deaths due to coal are far higher. The numbers are strictly US and European derived.

Not including statistics from China would be like not including Chernobyl because it was from Russia and an old reactor (30 years old at the time). So we don't include China because it's developing and communist? Well Russia in many ways was inferior to the US, so to me this argument is bunk.

Yet NASA still concluded fossil fuels were far worse, although they probably used the 9,000 deaths figure for Chernobyl and also were accounting for the GhG emissions--much higher for coal. I would like to investigate further what happens to these estimates of death per TWh when you use the high estimates of deaths for Chernobyl. Instead of using the 9,000 estimate I'd use the 93,000 estimate. And to be fair, I'd include China in the death estimate for coal, sine it seems disingenuous not to.

Related to that "investigation" is this (this article is about the NASA study I linked in my previous post):
blogs.ei.columbia.edu - Fossil Fuels Do Far More Harm Than Nuclear Power...

Using historical electricity production data and mortality and emission factors from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, we found that despite the three major nuclear accidents the world has experienced — at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima — nuclear power prevented an average of over 1.8 million net deaths worldwide between 1971-2009. This amounts to at least hundreds and more likely thousands of times more deaths than it caused. An average of 76,000 deaths per year were avoided between 2000-2009. Likewise, we calculate that nuclear power prevented an average of 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent net GHG emissions globally between 1971-2009. This is about 15 times more emissions than it caused. It is equivalent to the past 35 years or 17 years of CO2 emissions from coal burning in the US or China, respectively. In effect, nuclear energy production has prevented the building of hundreds of large coal-fired power plants.

They're saying nuclear power saved the lives of 1.8 million people worldwide between 1971-2009. Their study included Chernobyl, but it probably included the 9,000 death estimate. Assuming it included the 93,000 estimate, wouldn't that mean the "1.8 million" would fall to "1.7 million"? Wouldn't nuclear still be the clear winner?

EDIT: Their total estimated deaths for nuclear power globally between 1971-2009 is 4900. This means the prevented deaths is 370 times higher. Their estimate for deaths due to Chernobyl is only 43!!!! They limit themselves to the strictest evidences--which seems ridiculous to me. And yet, given their estimates are derived from US and European practices, it's possible many more lives were saved, depending on how many have died in developing countries from nuclear power accidents/pollution and how many more were killed by coal. And even if 93,000 people died due to Chernobyl, ~1.7 million prevented lives is not much different from ~1.8 million.