Dead sea creatures cover 98 percent of ocean floor off California coast as result of Fukushima nucle

reply to post by nighthawk1954

Really?
I am astounded.

reply to post by nighthawk1954

reply to post by AutumnWitch657

If you put an eye dropper full of calcium hypochlorite in a 5 gallon bucket of water, you would more than kill everything in it. Look it up

reply to post by FlySolo


Sept 2013 was three months ago. The statistics have changed in three months?

reply to post by tinyDAWK


Apple's and oranges my friend Apple's and oranges. My reference was for percentages not content. If you dumped 300,000 gallons of your chemical into the Pacific ocean would it make any difference in the water or sea life? No.

reply to post by AutumnWitch657


No, sounds more like the calculations in your analogy was an understatement.

reply to post by FlySolo


I heard the same thing about mosquitos once. Male mosquitos buzz when they fly due to bigger wings but males don't suck blood. The females don't make noise but they bite. So if you're lying in bed at night and you hear nothing ...

How or why would a bit of radiation on the other side of the world be responsible?

Sounds to me like someone is looking for anyone to blame but themselves Though I'd like to see the actual study before drawing any conclusions. I remain sceptical about this 1% to 98% increase. But maybe that's cos I don't wear a tinfoil hat?

reply to post by AutumnWitch657


Just saying an eye dropper full in a 5 gallon can have some disastrous consiquenses, with things as dangerous as cesium. Honestly tho I don't think the amount of irradiated water in the Pacific Ocean would equate to the same ratio... I think you over stated. And have too much pride to admit it

reply to post by FlySolo


I can understand in a way as I live on the coast of CA. If they gave an alarming report many would leave and it would collapse the economy which is already really bad.

What people fail to remember is the oceans do not just sit there or act like a bathtub there are currents and they carry things and build up whatever is added in some areas.


If everything is peachy why this...they are giving excuses why they won't buy from the West Coast US but I think it is the radiation which no one is testing for here. Or not sharing if they are.,

Just why the Chinese government decided to broaden the seafood ban beyond geoducks to halt imports of all bivalves—including other clam species and oysters—from the Pacific Northwest is a mystery.

The ban could become a costly problem for states like Washington, which harvests between 5.5 million and 7 million pounds of geoduck annually—with nearly 90 percent of it exported to the Chinese market.

www.takepart.com...

Zeppp
So somebody counted every square inch of the Pacific Ocean floor? What a daunting task!

I am not sure you read the OP. This does not say 98% or the Pacific but the area OFF THE CA COAST.The CA coastal area is well studied and monitored for many reasons already even before Fukushima.

Dead sea creatures cover 98 percent of ocean floor off California coast as result of Fukushima nuclear fallout

nighthawk1954

Skywatcher2011

catfishjoe
So long seafood. With pollution and over fishing we won't be seeing seafood on the menu much longer. Damn I'm going to miss it.

I stopped eating seafood since the Fukushima disaster. Hopefully you didn't eat any radioactive sea creatures before you made your post.

I have a geiger counter and I cheak all my sea food.

You must be the talk at the dinner table in that case LOL

AutumnWitch657
The radiation spilling out of fukishima is an isotope that is stored in muscle and breaks down pretty quickly once fish swim out of the affected area so by the time fish get to the US their radiation levels will be back to normal. The radiation will be diluted to less than .00000000014% of the total volumn of water in the entire Pacific.

Clearly you need to look into the topic more closely:

In a leaked TEPCO report dated June 2011, it was revealed that plutonium-238, −239, −240, and −241 were released "to the air" from the site during the first 100 hours after the earthquake, the total amount of plutonium said to be 120 billion becquerels (120 GBq) — perhaps as much as 50 grams. The same paper mentioned a release of 7.6 trillion becquerels of neptunium-239 – about 1 milligram. As neptunium-239 decays, it becomes plutonium-239. TEPCO made this report for a press conference on 6 June, but according to Mochizuki of the Fukushima Diary website, the media knew and "kept concealing the risk for 7 months and kept people exposed"

Wiki Fuku Radiation

Depending on the isotope, Plutonium can remain dangerous for anywhere from decades to beyond a thousand years.

If you dig around a bit you will realize there are hundreds of isotopes released at random, and as they decay they change. Rather than one isotope, it's more like "hundreds". The media keeps the focus on the short lived less dangerous ones, and fails to report information about the many many others.

About why Dilution is a bad thing:
Radiation contamination is kept in "containment" for a reason. So it doesn't "dilute" into the surrounding environment. Once "dilution into the environment" occurs, it is called a "radiological disaster".

Dilution means that everything will get polluted, containment means we are safe.

Char-Lee

Zeppp
So somebody counted every square inch of the Pacific Ocean floor? What a daunting task!

I am not sure you read the OP. This does not say 98% or the Pacific but the area OFF THE CA COAST.The CA coastal area is well studied and monitored for many reasons already even before Fukushima.

Dead sea creatures cover 98 percent of ocean floor off California coast as result of Fukushima nuclear fallout

Do you still realize how large of an area that is? I don't believe it one bit!

reply to post by Skywatcher2011


LOL!

reply to post by FlySolo


Weren't my calculations. This is fact. But you know what if you WANT to believe that the ocean is being poisoned and that we're all dead that's your prerogative.

reply to post by Zeppp


Well we will see!

There is no telling what caused all of the deaths in the sea, and although radiation poisoning is a possibility it seems rather unlikely.

For example if the levels were high enough to kill off masses of creatures near CA, than it would seem it should be happening in many other locations simultaneously.

The truth is somewhere in between the extremes, so rather than having mass die offs what we will more likely see as a result of Fukushima are significant spikes in cancer rates and increased mutations among all organisms randomly. As a result of dispersion it is unlikely to see any instant-deaths especially thousands of miles away.

Besides, the Fukushima disaster just started and we lack information.
We won't really know for sure how this plays out until 2100 AD and beyond.
Not many hopeful prospects.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


It sells better that way. As for the dead fish and other sea wildlife, it's troubling that's for sure. If it isn't Fuku, it's something else bad. Either way, mass fish die offs aren't a good thing.

AutumnWitch657
reply to post by FlySolo

 

if you WANT to believe that the ocean is being poisoned and that we're all dead that's your prerogative.

it IS being poisoned. I wouldn't exactly call what's spilling out at Fukushima kool-aid.