Three Reasons Why Fukushima Radiation Has Nothing to Do with Starfish Wasting Syndrome
Last edited Sun Jan 12, 2014, 09:46 PM - Edit history (1)
http://deepseanews.com/2013/12/three-reasons-why-fukushima-radiation-has-nothing-to-do-with-starfish-wasting-syndrome/1. Starfish Wasting Disease/Syndrome (SWD/SWS) pre-Dates Fukushima by 3 to 15 years.
2. Starfish Wasting Syndrome Occurs on the East Coast as well as the Pacific.
3. No other life in these regions seems to have been affected.
More Likely Reasons?
Speculation.... seems..... Possibly.... as possibly..... some other type of infection......?
*************
DSNEws is specualating it seems possibly it is an infection? Where's the science DSN? You present no science at all. Just speculation.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)They have done no science. Oh wait, one guy took a dive and saw nothing wrong but a few dead starfish, so his 'science' is that the whole ocean is fine! WTF?
They have not tested for radionuclides, if they had they sure tell you so.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)1. Starfish Wasting Disease/Syndrome (SWD/SWS) pre-Dates Fukushima by 3 to 15 years.
Hey, we've been dumping nuclear material in the Pacific fr 50 years.
2. Starfish Wasting Syndrome Occurs on the East Coast as well as the Pacific.
The Fukushima event was one that a cloud of reactor material crossed the US in the air. It was deposited via fallout and rainfall all over the US. When it rained the nuclear material washed off into the Atlantic.
3. No other life in these regions seems to have been affected.
No other life seems to be affected? That is just an anti-science claim as there are many other reports of sea life along the west coast having serious issues. And dolphins in the Atlantic. A careful reader will note that the DSN says there is no other sea life with problems in the Atlantic and what I have pointed out is that there are other sea life organisms with problems in the Atlantic.
In short, the DSNews report stinks.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)We've all heard about how the starfish have been dying in the waters in the NW Pacific Ocean. Divers claim to have seen them melt away right before their eyes. Melting is what happens when a starfish dies. So what is making the starfish die? No one seems to know. So I have done a bit of research and in the following posts will share that research with you.
In summary, starfish are known to be an indicator specie. That means that if the starfish are in trouble, many other species are likely to be in trouble. Starfish are fairly unique in that they can regenerate parts of their bodies. How they do that is not exactly clear. But in that sense they are very special.
Starfish eat many things. Mostly bottom dwelling things. Like mussels. It has been discovered that if starfish are removed from some locations, mussel populations explode. In one report linked below, it has been discovered that mussels near Alaska have very high concentrations of radioisotopes. The starfish eat these mussels and the radioisotopes then are in the starfish. Known as moving up the food chain.
How do mussels get the plutonium in them? Mussels are filter feeders. Mussels feed by filtering water and taking suspended solids from that water. Plutonium, and other heavy metals drift to the bottom where the mussels are, and the mussels, in their feeding, filter out the plutonium which ends up in the mussel's meat which the starfish eat.
In this report from the DOE, US government, it is described why they test for radioisotopes, where they test, when they test and some test findings. Note the bolded listing for plutonium found in the mussels that were tested.
*********************
US Gov’t: Alaska island “appears to show impacts from Fukushima” — “Significant cesium isotope signature” detected — Scientists anticipate more marine life to be impacted as ocean plume arrives
http://enenews.com/us-govt-headline-alaska-island-appears-to-show-impacts-from-fukushima-significant-cesium-isotope-signature-detected-video
Department of Energy: Biological Monitoring at Amchitka Appears to Show Impacts from Fukushima Dai-ichi Incident.
The U.S. Department of Energy Office Legacy Management (LM) has a long-term stewardship mission to protect human health and the environment from the legacy of underground nuclear testing conducted at Amchitka Island, Alaska, from 1965 to 1971. Atmospheric monitoring in the United States showed elevated cesium activities shortly after the nuclear incident. LM scientists anticipated that atmospheric transport of cesium would potentially increase the cesium activities in the 2011 biological samples collected near Amchitka. Because cesium-134 has a relatively short half-life of 2 years and indicates leakage from a nuclear reactor, it is a clear indicator of a recent nuclear accident.
Because the Amchitka 2011 sampling event occurred soon after the Fukushima nuclear accident, the biota impacted by atmospheric precipitation showed the greatest impact (e.g., species that live in freshwater or shallow ocean waters) when compared to marine biota living in deeper water. This is because ocean currents are a slower transport process than wind currents. LM scientists anticipate that the marine biota will show the impacts of Fukushima during the next sampling event, currently scheduled to occur in 2016.
* Plutonium-239 — .039 pCi/kg Dolly Varden
* Plutonium-239 — .186 pCi/kg Goose Egg no shell
* Plutonium-239 — .104 pCi/kg Gull egg
* Plutonium-239 — .298 pCi/kg Chiton
* Plutonium-239 — .093 pCi/kg Dragon Kelp
* Plutonium-239 — .084 pCi/kg Rockweed
* Plutonium-239 — .379 pCi/kg Greeling
* Plutonium-239 — .038 pCi/kg Halibut
* Plutonium-239 — 4.194 pCi/kg Horse Mussel tissue
* Plutonium-239 — .378 pCi/kg Irish Lord
* Plutonium-239 — .036 pCi/kg Octopus
* Plutonium-239 — .05 pCi/kg Pacific Cod
* Plutonium-239 — .279 pCi/kg Rockfish
* Plutonium-239 — .152 pCi/kg Reindeer Lichen
* Plutonium-239 — .195 pCi/kg Sea Urchin
zappaman
(20,606 posts)So, now you've expanded your bullshit to the Atlantic?
Congrats!
Will you now connect Fukushima to the lack of air on the moon?
questionseverything
(9,655 posts)the radiation weakened the immune systems of the starfish making them more susceptible to the existing disease
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)You are already way ahead of the so called scientists of the DSNews.
Note that they closed down the comments on the DSNews site. Seems to be a lot of closing down comments at sites, eh?
questionseverything
(9,655 posts)on other sites but
what I wonder about is how much the environment can take and still sustain life as we know it
with nuclear power humans start a dangerous chemical process we can only stop under ideal conditions
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Below is the comment left by one person who questions the DSNews declaration. Hmmmm
*****************Quote:
Epidemiologically, are not the factors you have raised direct evidence of the impact of potassium/caesium and Calcium/Strontium ionic replacement? Four points:
1. Perhaps more so than any other sea creature, K and Ca are the critical minerals for starfish. Starfish have complex K and Ca exchange, uptake and shedding mechanisms.
2. Sr and Cs are notorious Ca and K emulators respectively.
3. A single Sr90 or Cs137 atom resident in a starfish for a few days would release enough energy to create soft tissue trauma (mutative effects inclusive). Biological response? Uptake K to attempt a heal, and more K to attempt to shed the damaged arm. Effect? More potential Cs and Sr intake. What happens when the starfish gets multiplicitous shed messages from 10-20 atomic trauma centres throughout its whole body? It melts.
3. Sr and Cs are found in trace levels in every one of the places that SWS is now occuring, and have been for a number of years now. This is as a direct consequence of the US Government nuclear policies, and its shoddy and slipshod waste management practices. Sure, Fukushima is a slow moving toxic tidal wave, and you haven’t even started to see the true effects. But the killer genie was out of the bottle years ago.
4. Go and run some tests. Get relatively pure water from the deep South Pacific, and healthy starfish from the same region. Put a sick starfish in with the healthy ones. Then try adding some radioactive isotopes at trace levels. Break the story.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)One of the very few scientists who HAS sampled the Pacific for contaminants from Fuku has spoken out.
One simply has to wonder what data DSNews is using to make its conclusions about Fukushima. It appears the 'scientists' from DSnews are just wishing in one hand and spitting in the other.
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/97640
Dr. Buesseler is a scientist from the Woods Hole Institute who comments on the amount of data (real science!) that has been obtained so far.
I completely agree that no radiation has been seen in the regards that we’re not really testing for it [laughter] in any organized way … We have very few data; it’s not really being organized. The government says we don’t really need to do that because we’re predicting very low levels. On the other hand, you could argue I’d very much like to see study on our side of the ocean just to confirm these values and build some confidence with the public that’s been concerned about this. They’re right to be concerned — as scientists we’re telling them they shouldn’t be, but it’d be nice to have a few more data points to fill that gap … I’ve been told that there’s very little testing going on.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Radiation detected off the U.S. West Coast from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan has declined since the 2011 tsunami disaster and never approached levels that could pose a risk to human health, seafood or wildlife, scientists say.
Experts have been trying to dispel worries stemming from a burst of online videos and blog posts in recent months that contend radiation from Fukushima is contaminating beaches and seafood and harming sea creatures across the Pacific.
Those assertions are false and the concerns largely unfounded, scientists and government officials said last week, because Fukushima radionuclides in ocean water and marine life are at trace levels and declining — so low that they are trivial compared with what already exists in nature.
"There is no public health risk at California beaches due to radioactivity related to events at Fukushima," the California Department of Public Health said in a statement.
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-west-coast-radiation-20140113,0,4048380.story#ixzz2qL1cdyUc
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Why, yes they do. Quote:
"Radiation detected off the U.S. West Coast from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan has declined since the 2011 tsunami disaster..."
So, great paper, what were the levels? Why were there any levels?
The answer is that the rain dropped radiation from Fukushima. It rained down on the city streets. It rained down on the mountains. What happened to all that radiation that the LA Times admits has now declined? Why, it washed off into the ocean.
Thank you LA Times!! Truth! Finally!!
dionysus
(26,467 posts) RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)pdf of Pacific Transport of Cesium from Fukushima
https://www.pices.int/publications/presentations/PICES-2013/2013-MEQ/MEQ-1700-Smith.pdf
In which the scientists have found cesium from Fukushima in the ocean off of Canada. And they also model that more cesium will be closer in 2014. What year is this now?