Is the sea floor littered with dead animals due to radiation? No.

[Bonobo]

Recently we at Deep-Sea News have tried to combat misinformation about the presence of high levels of Fukushima radiation and its impact on marine organisms on the west coast of the United States. After doing thorough research, reading the scientific literature, and consulting with experts and colleagues, we have found no evidence of either. In the comments of those posts and on Twitter, readers have asked us about the “evidence” of dead marine life covering 98% of ocean floor in the Pacific as directly attributed to Fukushima radiation. After some searching I found the main “news” article that is referenced.

The Pacific Ocean appears to be dying, according to a new study recently published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Scientists from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) in California recently discovered that the number of dead sea creatures blanketing the floor of the Pacific is higher than it has ever been in the 24 years that monitoring has taken place, a phenomenon that the data suggests is a direct consequence of nuclear fallout from Fukushima.

Before I discuss this “evidence” further, I want to provide a little background. I am a deep-sea biologist and over the last several years my research has focused on the biodiversity of deep-sea communities off the California coast. Like many others, I am also working toward understanding how deep-sea life will respond to increased anthropogenic impacts particularly climate change. This resulted in a high profile publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. I mention this background because 1. It explains why I view myself as an expert to comment on this and 2. it explains why I was confounded for a moment when I thought I had missed a paper in a journal I have published in, on a geographic region I study, and on a topic close to my own research. And to boot from researchers at institution (MBARI) I was formerly employed with.

The reason I am unfamiliar with a study providing evidence of “Dead sea creatures cover 98 percent of ocean floor off California coast; up from 1 percent before Fukushima” is because no such study exists. Here are the details of the actual study (continued)


http://deepseanews.com/2014/01/is-the-sea-floor-littered-with-dead-animals-due-to-radiation-no/

[jberryhill]

1. How do you explain this?

[Warren DeMontague]

10. I think Godzilla should balance his workout to include more upper body strength

No, seriously, those are some big thighs.

[jberryhill]

49. Don't piss him off

He's sensitive about those sorts of remarks.

[Gormy Cuss]

45. Godzilla was born long before Fukushima.

If the ocean floor was now littered with baby Godzillas, your theory would perhaps be relevant but only if you proved that Big Daddy Godzilla wasn't responsible.

[jberryhill]

48. You Scientific Materialist, you

[Silent3]

2. Ah, but that must be pro-nuke propaganda!

Never mind any realistic sense of size or scope comparing every last bit of radioactive material at Fukushima, even if every bit of it escaped into the ocean, and the huge, vast, and enormous volume of the ocean... Fukushima will kill us all! Any one else telling you otherwise is a shill or a dupe!

[petronius]

3. Very interesting, thanks for posting! The discussion on marine snow

is fascinating...

(You may want to italicize or blockquote that second paragraph, however, since without clicking through it's not obvious that the author is quoting the nonsense-news.)

[Agschmid]

4. Yes that would be helpful!

[Bonobo]

6. Thanks. Done. nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. I do enjoy an old fashioned debunking.

[zappaman]

7. Deep sea news is doing good, rational work on this.

Thanks for posting!

[longship]

8. But, but, but,... The Sea Stars are melting!

The sea stars are melting from radiation from Fukushima!!!!

Nonsense! Marine biologists have been tracking sea star meltdown disease since the 1980's, decades before Fukushima.

But, but, but,... It's still caused by radiation!!!!!

Let's see your data.

<crickets>

[nilram]

14. All over the west coast! And parts of the east coast!

Just, um, not so much on the coasts of Japan...

[longship]

23. And decades before Fukushima

And not radiation.

[Scootaloo]

9. Pro tip, folks...

If you're discussing an area of land (or water) that is usually measured in hundred-mile increments, using numbers like "98%" isn't going to make you sound credible.

[LAGC]

11. I dare you to cross-post this in E&E.

[NBachers]

12. What a pleasure to read something written by a person with intelligence and experience.

I get the impression he really loves what he does for a living.

[1000words]

13. This is obviously an issue very important to you

As evidence by the number of posts you have created with the intent to inform. Thank you for making the effort, and please continue to do so. I eagerly consume as much information I can regarding the topic and am open to all perspectives, because there is indeed a campaign of misinformation going on ... and its coming from all sides.

[RobertEarl]

15. Great news!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101682071

Sea stars in trouble?

It's so nice to know that one scientist has determined that Fukushima is not a problem. That's one.

Of course they haven't tested for radiation or cesium, or plutonium, but that's not a big deal. The US government did, and you can catch up with that in the link above. . I've summed it pretty well. Just one click and a few minutes of reading!! Cheers!!

[Bonobo]

16. Here are the man's qualifications:

Craig McClain is the Assistant Director of Science for the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center, created to facilitate research to address fundamental questions in evolutionary science. He has conducted deep-sea research for 11 years and published over 40 papers in the area. He has participated in dozens of expeditions taking him to the Antarctic and the most remote regions of the Pacific and Atlantic. Craig’s research focuses mainly on marine systems and particularly the biology of body size, biodiversity, and energy flow. He focuses often on deep-sea systems as a natural test of the consequences of energy limitation on biological systems. He is the author and chief editor of Deep-Sea News, a popular deep-sea themed blog, rated the number one ocean blog on the web and winner of numerous awards. Craig’s popular writing has been featured in Cosmos, Science Illustrated, American Scientist, Wired, Mental Floss, and the Open Lab: The Best Science Writing on the Web.

Here are yours:

[Union Scribe]

17. No offense, but

if I'd had my ass kicked that bad in a thread the last thing I'd do would be to link to it in another thread.

[SidDithers]

21. +1...nt

Sid

[zappaman]

40. Lol

No kidding!

[Vashta Nerada]

41. +1

[greytdemocrat]

47. + 1 Also!

[FBaggins]

18. You summed it pretty well?

That's strange. Missing from your summation was any mention of the fact that in no case was the total radiation in the 2011 readings above those from 2004... and in no case were plutonium levels higher... and even cesium levels were lower in about 85% of the "specie" (sic).

[hobbit709]

20. Have you blamed the giant H-Bomb in the sky yet?

[snooper2]

37. Where do you live?

If you aren't on the West coast, maybe some of us can put a fund together to fly you out there..

You'll get a wetsuit and some tanks, start walking out in the ocean and go under! Stay down for about a half hour and when you come back on the beach we will see if you are glowing or not

[jeff47]

46. Yes, just a few minutes of reading, and you only have to believe in time travel. (nt)

[Katashi_itto]

19. Personally I am hopeful, but plan no opinion, till there is more hard data

[herding cats]

22. That is a great website!

I cannot believe I've never stumbled upon it before. Fact based articles written by intelligent scientist in a style which the average person can understand. I think I'm in love.

[X_Digger]

39. If you like DSN, also check out echinoblog (if you're a reef geek like me)

http://echinoblog.blogspot.com/

[WinkyDink]

24. Ostriches.

[Bonobo]

25. As opposed to the unicorns you are looking for

when you see hoofprints.

[WinkyDink]

43. Like these unicorns?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/navy-vets-say-fukushima-meltdown-made-them-sick/

[Bonobo]

56. Yes, exactly. nt

[Orrex]

26. Oh great. More woo.

k/r

[dipsydoodle]

28. No - woo is claiming all damage to sea life being due to Fukushima

in the absence of any firm scientific findings on the subject.

[Orrex]

30. Oh great. Even MORE woo.

[dipsydoodle]

31. Whatever.

Either way.

[Orrex]

32. Heh.

I'm pulling your leg.

Read any of my posts in the recent Woo Wars and you'll see where I stand on the issue.

[dipsydoodle]

33. OK

[reddread]

27. we are trashing this planet wholesale in ways we have never tried before

remain calm! The nuclear and petrochemical companies (and their MIC contingents) MIGHT be able to
purchase false flag hangouts, sponsor public broadcasts and fund limitless mouthpieces,
but rest assured- we are destroying the planet, and every known habitat upon it.

Nothing to worry about there.
The important thing is massive oil spills, nuclear and ecological disasters will not result in corrective measures.
All is well.

[bhikkhu]

42. The first step is to look at the facts

an environmentalist incline to make things up is no use to anybody, least of all other environmentalists.

[reddread]

44. tarring environmentalists with "woo" or bad science? thats BS

The ones I know, the ones who have the training and knowledge, they are SCIENTISTS.
Outflanked and outfunded (defunded by our governments corrupt connections) by industrial disease.
We live in a world that is upside down with corruption and greed.
First they hit the schools.
We do not live in a world that addresses reality, and it is comical watching people buy into the
shit being sold on their TV and computer.
Those poor misunderstood nuclear power profiteers.
being blamed for carnage when they only have the common good in mind.
right?

[bhikkhu]

57. Speaking specifically about some of the woo about Fukushima

Not that there aren't serious issues, and not that it isn't a seriously dangerous situation, but when there is so much hyperbole floating around it discredits efforts to address the real issues. I'm pretty sure anyone would know what I'm talking about.

[reddread]

66. is it woo to point out that those dead ends might serve another purpose?

aim a little higher, the stakes are sky high, and the resources behind these ultimate polluters massive in the extreme.
you wont have to look far to see the right wingers piping up with Environmentalist bashing.
Its like a twofer.

[MineralMan]

29. Actual information from someone who is a genuine expert?

Shocking! You're only supposed to post suppositions by people who have no qualifications or on-site knowledge to comment, but lots of imagination. I thought sure you knew that.

[FreakinDJ]

34. And the "Eco-Terrorist" wonder why a majority of Americans write them off

Long history of misinformation and cheery-picking of facts

[Bjorn Against]

35. Whether the sea floor is littered with dead animals or not the effect of Fukushima could not be good

There may not be huge piles of dead sea creatures at the bottom of the ocean, but there is no way that huge amounts of radioactive waste spilling into the ocean could be a good thing.

[FBaggins]

50. It isn't a question of whether or not it's a good thing

The question is how bad is it. Correcting people who blow it out of proportion (WAY out in this case) is not the same thing as saying "it's a good thing".

Spilling one quart of used motor oil into the Pacific is also not a good thing... but it isn't something that warrants national attention/fear.

From the earlier thread:

There are roughly 30 thousand-trillion Becquerels (PetaBecquerels) of Fukushima radioactivity in the Pacific Ocean….a number so colossal it is hard to get one’s mind around it. Let’s compare that to the activity we would find if Fukushima never happened. Here are the top five… (Source…Idaho State University - http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm)

1 - Uranium, isotopes 238 and 235 = 22 million-trillion Bq

2 – Potassium-40 = 7.4 billion-trillion Bq

3 – Tritium (Hydrogen-3) = 370 thousand-trillion Bq

4 – Carbon-14 = 3 million-trillion Bq

5 – Rubidium-87 = 700 million-trillion Bq.

While 30 thousand-trillion (Fukushima’s number) is astonishing in-itself, when we compare it to the roughly billions-of-trillion number that occurs naturally, it takes the scare-factor out of the rhetorical equation. Opponents to nuclear energy like to use the Fukushima numbers in isolation from what we find in nature because it scares people and fulfills their antinuclear agenda. When placed in context, the scare-factor diminishes mightily
http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-commentary.html

[Bjorn Against]

51. You can't compare this with one quart of motor oil

[FBaggins]

52. Which is why I then gave the valid comparison

But it's a heck of a lot closer to a quart of motor oil than it is to "98 percent of the ocean floor is covered with animals killed by Fukushima" or "thousands of babies in the Pacific northwest died from radiation in the weeks after the meltdowns" etc.

[Bjorn Against]

53. Of course I never made either of those claims

The claim I did make is much closer to reality than any comparison between this disaster and one quart of motor oil.

[jeff47]

54. The error in your claim was "huge amounts of radioactivity"

The amounts dumped into the ocean aren't trivial. But the ocean is so damn large that the amounts dumped into it are not "huge".

It's bad right around the plant, but dilution makes it a non-event elsewhere.

[Bjorn Against]

55. There are huge amounts of radiation leaking from the plant

Just because the ocean is even more huge does not make my claim inaccurate. Dilution will make the problem less severe the further you get from the plant, but we really don't know the long term effects this is going to have and I think it is irresponsible to act as if it is no big deal.

[FBaggins]

58. Not quite

The amounts that leaked out in the first days of the incident were quite large... but using the present-tense "are" changes the accuracy of the statement. There are not currently "huge" amounts leaking (nor have there been for quite some time).

[Bjorn Against]

59. Well huge amounts have leaked

Play semantics all you want, this is a very bad situation. Radioactive waste does not decompose, if lots of toxic chemicals leaked out those toxic chemicals are still in the water.

[FBaggins]

61. Radioactive waste does not decompose?

It does better than that... by the very act of giving off radiation it transforms itself into stable (non-radioactive) elements.

For instance... the largest amounts of radioactivity was released in noble gases and radioiodine... and effectively all of that is gone now.

[Bjorn Against]

63. You may not have noticed but there is a serious problem with nuclear waste disposal

If nuclear waste decomposed as easy as you think it does we would not have the controversy over Yuca Mountain, it is a well known fact that nuclear waste is very difficult to dispose of safely. Dumping it into the ocean is not safe.

[FBaggins]

64. It's called a "half life"

The more radioactive an element is, the shorter the half-life. With Chernobyl, the explosion blew the lid right off of the reactor and that (plus the ensuing fire) propelled a significant portion of the core into the air as physical particles (the "hot particles" that Gundersen talks about - but which aren't relevant for Fukushima).

But at Fukushima, the vast bulk of the core stayed within the containment. What escaped was almost entirely the elements that were most volatile. They also happen to have the shortest half-lives. The noble gases were incredibly active - but were quickly gone. The Radioiodine is next, but it has a half-life of about eight days... so it too faded fast (comparatively). The longest-lived element released in significant quantities was Cesium (two or eight years for 134/138 respectively) So well over half of the 134 is already gone.

The "controversy" (contrived controversy really) over nuclear waste isn't relevant in this case, because the elements with half lives in the thousands to billions of years aren't something that Fukushima put out in any significant quantity.

[FBaggins]

60. Of course not.

But the context of the comparison wasn't your position - it was that of the fringe elements that do in fact say such thing.

However... at least one of your claims wasn't all that close to reality. Claiming that plutonium is the most toxic substance on earth and you're virtually guaranteed to get cancer from inhaling the smallest particle is pretty far out there (though not in the same zip code of some of the true-woo).

[Bjorn Against]

62. I did not even mention plutonium but it is in fact very toxic

I don't think you would be able to find me a scientific article that would suggest plutonium is safe to inhale.

[FBaggins]

65. Just not THAT toxic.

I don't think you would be able to find me a scientific article that would suggest plutonium is safe to inhale.

And you can't see anything in between "safe to inhale" and "most toxic substance on earth" or an almost certain cancer if you breath it in?

In reality... nuclear weapons testing over the years put many MANY tons of plutonium into the atmosphere and seas. You absolutely have breathed it in in far higher amounts than anyone will ever get from Fukushima.

For comparison... the Fukushima release of Plutonium is variously estimated at between 1-3 trillion bq. Depending on the mix of isotopes, that's an amount that would be measured in milligrams or grams... it simply doesn't compare to the amount of plutonium in the atmosphere and sea that we've lived with for decades.

[oldhippie]

36. MBARI is a pretty cool organization.

I lived in Monterey when the Monterey Bay Aquarium was being started. I was one of the original Charter Members and a Contributor. When they started building the MBARI facility in Moss Landing (next to Phil's Fish Market, which was one of my favorite places until the SF Bay area crowd "discovered" it) I got very interested in the Institute. I never worked there, but I knew some of the engineers and techs that worked on the underwater robotic vehicles and their support systems on the ships. The scientists there are a bunch of smart guys.

[Bennyboy]

38. More debunking in this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4276088