General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsStarfish dying in the NW Pacific
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 'keystone' specie. That means starfish populations have direct effects on other species in the starfish habitat. 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. It has been discovered that mussels near Alaska have very high concentrations of radioisotopes. When starfish eat these mussels, the radioisotopes then are in the starfish. That is 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.
Conclusion: Atmospheric deposition of radioisotopes from Fukushima is established. Plutonium from Fukushima has been found in mussels in the NW Pacific. Starfish eat mussels. Starfish are dying and causing researchers great alarm. It is possible that plutonium is killing the starfish.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Still think it is because of Fukushima?
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Killing dolphins...in the Atlantic.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Fukushima-related radioactive materials measured across entire Northern Hemisphere
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110407121343.htm
Since the double disaster of the 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami that affected hundreds of thousands of people and seriously damaged the Fukushima Daichi power plant in Japan on 11 March 2011, minute traces of radioactive emissions from Fukushima have spread across the entire Northern Hemisphere. A monitoring network designed to detect signs of nuclear explosions picked up these traces from the stricken power plant. To date, more than 30 radionuclide stations that are part of the International Monitoring System have provided information on the spread of radioactive particles and noble gases from the Fukushima accident.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)There is more and more of it in the oceans. Some previous wasting could have been because of Chernobyl and weapon testing. Pretty much anywhere in the N. Hemisphere. Those deposits could be contributors. The DoE report below details that they still find traces in the sea life from Alaska tests.
Now we have Fukushima. Not only did it make deposits via air transport, but it now has been found in the NW pacific as described in another link below.
It is adding up. Spreading. The whole N. Pacific is now contaminated. Not making this up, it is all real science as linked below in follow up replies of mine.
DFW
(54,254 posts)It used to be that the beaches on Cape Cod had dozens of starfish clinging to the rocks just offshore. I haven't seen even one of them in close to ten years.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)but your posts add as little to the conversation as the one you criticize.
Clearly there are some who refuse to rule out Fukushima:
Dr. Peter Raimondi of the University of Santa Cruz says something is making starfish susceptible to whats believed to be a bacteria coined “Wasting Disease.” It essentially disintegrate the marine invertebrates into a white goo, after the starfish loses its legs.
He says what’s making sea stars unable to fight off the bacteria could be anything from warm water to toxins–but Raimondi also says scientists can’t rule out nuclear pollution, especially in light of the tsunami that followed the 2011 earthquake.
It washed large amounts of debris to our shores–and Raimondi says nuclear pollution could have come with that.
“One of the byproducts is obviously nuclear radiation discharge. The second thing is debris, tons of debris, which has shown up especially on the North West Coast,” he adds.
http://www.news1130.com/2013/12/30/starfish-wasting-disease-outbreak-could-be-due-to-radiation/
More from UC Santa Cruz website:
http://www.eeb.ucsc.edu/pacificrockyintertidal/data-products/sea-star-wasting/
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Pollution from Fukushima could very well be affecting the starfish's ecosystem. But the claim made in the OP was that the pollution alone was responsible for the starfish die off, which is just patently not true.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)The OP's claim thus can't be ruled out.
While I am skeptical that Fukushima is responsible, I refuse to simply dismiss the possibility outright without more study. And I also refuse to ridicule EneNews for re-posting stories related to Fukushima especially when the stories link to credible publications.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)That's the claim of the OP.
It's been shown that a wasting disease has been plaguing the starfish population for a while, and is primarily responsible for the die off.
The very existence of the wasting disease explanation rules out the OP's claim almost entirely on the basis that it is a cause of the die off, nevermind the chief cause.
No, scientists shouldn't rule out nuclear pollution, but neither should the evidence of the wasting disease's role be thrown out in favor of nuclear pollution as the sole cause.
Therein lies the problem with the OP. An argument that never had any merit from the get go because of its complete disregard for existing explanations.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)I am just speculating. Still, I suspect you are right, the two are probably unrelated.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)It's possible I guess. 
questionseverything
(9,644 posts)wether it is starfish we are talking about or sailors on the ss reagon
/////////////////////////////////////////
nothing in the ecosystem is unrelated
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)There really is a point to the old "It's impossible to prove a negative" adage. Scientifically, that is.
If radiation were a factor, then we would be picking up the radiation in other lifeforms from the ocean in the west coast - and we aren't:
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/01/08/no-danger-in-eating-pacific-ocean-fish-despite-fukushima-disaster-usc-professor-says/
And believe it or not, yes, the US government has been checking and still checks. Here's an oldie but still relevant news release from the FDA:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/RecallsOutbreaksEmergencies/Emergencies/UCM253896.pdf
Here's a recent (this January) Scientific American article:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-to-worry-about-after-fukushima-nuclear-disaster/
...
Marine scientists have calculated that, based on all the radioactive particles released (or leaking) from Fukushima, a dose due to this most recent nuclear accident would add up to a total of roughly one microsievert (a unit of radiation exposure) of extra radiation—roughly one tenth the average daily dose most Americans experience, one fortieth the amount from a cross–North America flight and one one-hundredth the exposure from a dental x-ray.
Here's the thing - scientists and the already-extant nuclear monitoring programs in the US and other countries were checking on all this at the time of the accident and have been since. The reason there is no scientific concern over this is because in this case, they have proved the negative in so far as breaking the potential causal chain. You would have to be able to detect higher radiation levels in these waters before radiation could be a factor.
Close to Japan some of the fish are contaminated, most specifically those that live in the near-coastal waters, rivers and lakes near Fukushima and slightly north. As the run-off from land contamination washing into the waterways filters down into the sediments in these waters, contamination in some of these species could continue to rise for a few years yet. But that is thousands of miles from these dying starfish.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Lets break this down:
I'm going to pretty much skip the local news links you post, because it's just media sources and we know most of that is just blah, blah. The idea that there are 'no traces of radiation found anywhere' is known to be utterly false.
So lets look at this snipped from your post:
Marine scientists have calculated that, based on all the radioactive particles released (or leaking) from Fukushima, a dose due to this most recent nuclear accident would add up to a total of roughly one microsievert (a unit of radiation exposure) of extra radiation—roughly one tenth the average daily dose
Is that dose to marine life the same as if marine life took a flight, had dental x-rays? I ask because for marine life it is not a one time factor, it is an all day, all night, 24/7 dose. Don't you find it odd that marine scientists talk about doses to people but say nothing about marine life?
Then you claim:
You would have to be able to detect higher radiation levels in these waters before radiation could be a factor.
Well, yo mama, it has been decided by marine scientists that there is indeed higher radiation levels being found already in the NW Pacific.
All in all, your post is non-nonsensical and quite devoid of sound science.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)or ignore the nonsense. Not sure why some think it necessary to try to silence others. Do they think that the rest of us need protecting from nonsense? I think I can tell nonsense with out their help.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)If you think starfish are dying because of Fukushima, then obviously you need help.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)truth and all that disagree "need help". I appreciate your certainty but wish that you keep an open mind and skip the ridicule.
Brother Buzz
(36,356 posts)
bhikkhu
(10,711 posts)"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes". Mark Twain
It has been found that the more times people hear a lie, the more likely it is to be believed, so I think its still important to respond to nonsense (however repetitive), lest we become like the repugs.
Brother Buzz
(36,356 posts)And for shits and giggles, post a link that mention Bananas, even tangentially, and watch the reaction. 
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)There's literally zero evidence that Fukushima radiation is causing the wasting. I suppose that won't stop you from exclaiming otherwise.
bhikkhu
(10,711 posts)related to El Nino events and other things, dead zones, agricultural pollution, natural cycles and so forth. You would need some pretty good evidence to establish that it was Fukushima, and (unfortunately for that theory) it would be very easy to prove that it was related, if that was the case. Heavy metals don't just vanish after they kill an organism.
Which leaves - if there isn't evidence of heavy metal contamination associated with starfish die-offs (and there doesn't seem to be), then Fukushima isn't the cause. Unless one believes there is a massive multi-national conspiracy to cover up the evidence.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)The OP believes there is a multi-national conspiracy to cover up the evidence.
bhikkhu
(10,711 posts)One would have to have no idea how science works, for one thing. A massive contamination along thousands of miles of coast, spanning the territories of three nations, the turf of hundreds of competent biologists, universities and research institutes, any of them capable of measuring heavy metal contamination...that would be hard to keep under wraps.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Without a single person noticing or commenting.
Belief in these sort of impossible possibilities predates the specific argument. Some people need to believe such conspiracies exist.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)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 excerpted listing for plutonium found in the mussels that were tested. This finding confirms the idea that plutonium can be passed up the food chain to the starfish.
*********************
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 — 4.194 pCi/kg Horse Mussel tissue
******************
The above snipped report, linked to via ENEnews.com, and discussed on that site at the link, details that mussels near Alaska were found to have Plutonium-239 in their tissue. It makes sense that mussels all along the PNW are likewise contaminated, altho I have not found any report saying as much. What we do have is a US government report from the region. We simply need more testing. Which is why I am posting all this; Encourage more testing for Fukushima radionuclides.
zappaman
(20,606 posts) 
Berlum
(7,044 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Quick! Get the vinegar spray bottles!
Sid
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)ENENews, or Energy News, is a fear mongering anti-nuclear news aggregator that was created in response to the Fukushima I nuclear accident. The site tends to have three different types of posts: posts that imply the Fukushima accident has poisoned the entire Pacific Ocean and adjacent coastlines[1][2][3] (as if a single nuclear accident could do such a thing) and that "They" are covering up the true scale of the disaster.[4][5] The site also features posts that report on any and every case of animal death and disease that occurs in the Pacific Ocean and adjacent coastlines[6][7], and posts that claim that the Fukushima reactors are seconds away from exploding again and releasing more pollution.[8][9]
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/ENENews
Is Fukushima your only concern? What about other nuclear sites? I mean we have them all over the US.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Nothing but bad news.
Reports of the west coast fishing industry crashing because there are no fish.
Don't read it!!
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I don't waste my time with known conspiracy theory promoters and fake science like that link.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Have a nice day.
Response to RobertEarl (Original post)
Journeyman This message was self-deleted by its author.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)We've posted links and showed you time and time again.
Link: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/west-coast-starfish-turning-goo-latest-mass-animal/story?id=20781468#
Link: http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_24446327/disease-causes-west-coast-starfish-deaths
Link: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/disease-534453-starfish-wasting.html
It's not from Fukushima. Quit spreading misinformation.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)***************
Diet of the starfish >> source wikipedia
Most species are generalist predators, eating microalgae, sponges, bivalves, snails and other small animals. Some species are detritivores, eating decomposing organic material and faecal matter. The crown-of-thorns starfish consumes coral polyps. The processes of feeding and capture may be aided by special parts; Pisaster brevispinus, the short-spined pisaster from the West Coast of America, can use a set of specialized tube feet to dig itself deep into the soft substrate to extract prey (usually clams). Grasping the shellfish, the starfish slowly pries open the prey's shell by wearing out its adductor muscle, and then inserts its everted stomach into the crack to digest the soft tissues. The gap between the valves need only be a fraction of a millimetre wide for the stomach to gain entry.
*****************
Ecological impact of starfish >>>> source whikipedia
Starfish devouring mussel
Pisaster ochraceus consuming a mussel in central California
Starfish are keystone species in their respective marine communities. Their relatively large sizes, diverse diets and ability to adapt to different environments makes them ecologically important. The term "keystone species" was in fact first used by Robert Paine in 1966 to describe a starfish, Pisaster ochraceus. When studying the low intertidal coasts of Washington state, Paine found that predation by P. ochraceus was a major factor in the diversity of species. Experimental removals of this top predator from a stretch of shoreline resulted in lower species diversity and the eventual domination of Mytilus mussels, which were able to outcompete other organisms for space and resources. Similar results were found in a 1971 study of Stichaster australis on the intertidal coast of the South Island of New Zealand. S. australis was found to have removed most of a batch of transplanted mussels within two or three months of their placement, while in an area from which S. australis had been removed, the mussels increased in number dramatically, overwhelming the area and threatening biodiversity.
Survival of ocean warming and ph change for mussels
A 2009 study found that P. ochraceus is unlikely to be affected by ocean acidification as severely as other marine animals with calcareous skeletons. In other groups, structures made of calcium carbonate are vulnerable to dissolution when the pH is lowered. Researchers found that when P. ochraceus were exposed to 21 °C (70 °F) and 770 ppm carbon dioxide (beyond rises expected in the next century), they were relatively unaffected. Their survivability is likely due to the nodular nature of their skeletons, which are able to compensate for a shortage of carbonate by growing more fleshy tissue.
*****
Links and other sources
Lead Researcher: Fukushima pollution may be causing sea star epidemic on West Coast — Sea urchins, sea cucumbers also affected — “Something’s making them susceptible”… “It’s unlike anything we’ve seen”… “Populations go locally extinct overnight, literally”
http://enenews.com/lead-researcher-fukushima-pollution-a-cause-of-epidemic-wiping-out-starfish-along-west-coast-sea-urchins-and-sea-cucumbers-also-affected-something-is-making-them-susceptible-infection-it
Experts: Fukushima can’t be excluded as factor in sea stars turning to goo along West Coast; It hasn’t been ruled out — They’re “particularly proficient” at absorbing radioisotopes; 1,000 times more plutonium than fish
http://enenews.com/colonies-of-starfish-turning-to-mush-disintegrating-into-white-goo-experts-we-cant-exclude-fukushima-radiation-it-hasnt-been-ruled-out-starfish-particularly-proficient-at-absorbing-ra
MindMover
(5,016 posts)It is possible that mussels within a 30-50 mile radius of Fukushima have ingested these radioisotopes and starfish who eat them are then affected ... after that ... anything is possible ... but the possibility becomes smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller ... until your claims become chicken littleish ...
You know Robert, if you want to do some research on something that is worse than Fukushima, you should concentrate your efforts on the Gulf oil spill by BP ... report on that monstrous mess and the continuing damage that is being caused by petroleum ...
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4397
longship
(40,416 posts)Notice how he self-promotes his own thread by adding even more rubbish. It's like the Gish gallop, a sure sign of pseudoscience.
Those of us who have interacted with him know how ideological the arguments are. Certainly they are not based on any actual science.
So now, we just ridicule these posts. That's the only thing to do with this kind of stuff.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)This report describes how radionuclides from Fukushima were found in the water offshore in the Pacific. The report is the first to detail this fact. It goes on to say that the contamination is due to reach shore this year. And that much more sampling must be done.
http://www.pices.int/publications/presentations/PICES-2013/2013-MEQ/MEQ-1700-Smith.pdf
*************
At this site:
http://phys.org/news/2014-01-radioactive-ocean.html
Is an appeal for more money for more sampling, since it seems, the governments are not inclined to sample our Pacific.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)At the following link from Deep Sea News, in the comments section, one commenter offered up some good suggestions to the scientists there.
http://deepseanews.com/2013/12/three-reasons-why-fukushima-radiation-has-nothing-to-do-with-starfish-wasting-syndrome/
*****************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.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)I run into merchant marines, divers and fisherman all the time - nobody - absolutely nobody here has ever heard anything about any of this
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Here is a link to a research study concerning the starfish.
http://www.eeb.ucsc.edu/pacificrockyintertidal/data-products/sea-star-wasting/
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)ocean ecologist have not been informed that Fukushima is related to this - no one in the NW Pacific has been informed about this either
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and it is not related. They know it is a repeat of a die out they saw back in the 1980s... perhaps Fuku blew up them and nobody told us.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)It happened a bit back then and now is way worse.
And they still can't pinpoint what is causing the wasting disease.
Of course, had any of them made a claim that nuclear radiation was even just a small part of the cause, they'd be lucky to get a job cleaning fist tanks after that.
The only established scientists that are free to discuss nuclear radiation in the Pacific ... those being from the Department of Energy, have indeed found nuclear radiation in the N. Pacific, via atmospheric deposition from weapon testing, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.
None of this is fucking hilarious, no matter what you think.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)That's one of the last refuges of pseudoscientific nonsense--creationism, climate change denial, homeopathy, flat earth, etc. "Secularists/communists/Big Pharma don't want this idea published because they're biased against us!"
If that's your explanation why your plutonium fish hypothesis isn't gaining mainstream traction, then it might be time to call it quits.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Don't ask me how the (il)logic of it works, but you see that crap in pseudoscientific claptrap threads all the time.
Me personally? I'm wondering what a 'fist tank' looks like. Is like a steampunk version of the panzer with a fist on the front with rivets on the knuckles?
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Funny as shit. I claim someone would be in professional trouble for mentioning nukes, and the biggest baddest attacker of me on these threads is someone named NuclearDem. F'n ironic.
And then you do your own psuedo schtick making fun of a typo!
Excellent work you two. Just brilliant.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)You know, the fukushima radiation that went back in time three years to cause SWD, and hopped a whole continent to also show up on the east coast of the US?
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Why don't you tell us why this is happening?
I have offered my opinion, backed by lots of science links.
So come on, be brave and offer your opinion. But:
Not even Deep Sea News knows why.
From dsn: Unfortunately, we have no data on the actual agent that causes SWS. Within the grand realm of possibility there is always a (slim?) possibility there is a connection with Fukushima, but nothing we’ve seen gives us any reason to think that.
http://deepseanews.com/2013/12/three-reasons-why-fukushima-radiation-has-nothing-to-do-with-starfish-wasting-syndrome/
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Or you know, the actual lede:
2) Starfish Wasting Syndrome Occurs on the East Coast as well as the Pacific. Many of the accounts alleging a Fukushima connection to Starfish Wasting Syndrome forget that there are also accounts of SWS on the east coast of the United States affecting the asteriid Asterias rubens. There is no evidence (or apparent mechanism) for Fukushima radiation to have reached the east coast and therefore the Fukushima idea is again not supported.
3) No other life in these regions seems to have been affected. If we watch the original British Columbia Pycnopodia die-off videos, and the later Washington state die-off vidoes, one cannot help but notice that other than the starfish, EVERYTHING else remains alive. Fish. Seaweed, encrusting animals. etc.
You know, this reminds me of what one commenter said about creationists-
In their home waters, their arguments are based on dissecting and interpreting the Bible, much the way a lawyer dissects and interprets the law.
When they try to enter the realm of science they switch books, but not tactics. They comb science books looking for loop holes or trying to find some hook on which to hang an objection. They have no idea why this doesn't impress us.
This is eerily familiar, reading your out of context snippets.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Someone has been feeding the poor things BANANAS!
On that DSN comment section is this:
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.
*********
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)"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)."
There are so many things wrong with that statement. For one thing there is literally no way possible to back that claim up. None. Show me the study where they placed a single atom of any radionuclide into any tissue and came up with that dose response.
For another, both of those are beta emitters--the lowest possible LET factor. So the idea that "a few days" would yield such an effect is ridiculous without the amount present being enormous (i.e. a hell of a lot more than one bloody atom).
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)You've yet to address the time paradox of SWD 3-15 years before Fukushima on both US coasts.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I think there was a star trek episode in there, somewhere.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)There has been artificial nuclear materials in the oceans since we started weapon testing.
Then, recently, we have a great big added dose. From Fukushima.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)See? Logic, it isn't that hard!
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Fukushima is not THE cause. Radiation in the water, where these creatures live, may be the cause. Indeed radiation has been present each time. At this time there is a greater presence of radiation, duh!
Maybe you think Fukushima's radiation can't be a factor? That would not be logical.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Unless B time travels back before A, that is.
Is that really so hard to understand?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)I've had nuclear in almost all of my screen names and email addresses since I was 12. So what? I've been pretty clear on DU about my anti-nuclear views.
But seriously, that's the best you can do? Personal attacks, misconstruing data, and claims of persecution?
Because that sounds like pseudoscience to me.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and damn it, star fish can only get sick after exposed to plutonium. There is an Ignoble somewhere in there if you work hard at it.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Two common attributes for many of the sites are: (1) the period prior to wasting was characterized by warm water temperatures, and (2) the effects are dramatic.
Could it be:
El Nino and global warming may be playing a huge part in this. The bacteria may thrive in warmer temps.
Again from your link:
Importantly there is no evidence at all that links the current wasting event to the ongoing disaster at the Fukushima nuclear facility in Japan.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)http://www.komonews.com/news/eco/Has-mysterious-deadly-sea-star-disease-reached-West-Seattle-waters-233342451.html
http://www.king5.com/news/environment/West-Coast-sea-stars-mysteriously-dying-off--230142711.html
http://www.king5.com/news/environment/More-sea-star-species-dying-off-234162231.html
Scientists still don’t know how to treat or prevent wasting disorder but say they are narrowing in on a cause. They are ruling out some theories like radiation from Japan’s leaking Fukushima nuclear power plant. The Washington State Health Department and other agencies have tested coastal fish and found no elevated radiation levels.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)radiation has none to do with this.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)Dr. Peter Raimondi of the University of Santa Cruz says something is making starfish susceptible to whats believed to be a bacteria coined “Wasting Disease.” It essentially disintegrate the marine invertebrates into a white goo, after the starfish loses its legs.
He says what’s making sea stars unable to fight off the bacteria could be anything from warm water to toxins–but Raimondi also says scientists can’t rule out nuclear pollution, especially in light of the tsunami that followed the 2011 earthquake.
It washed large amounts of debris to our shores–and Raimondi says nuclear pollution could have come with that.
“One of the byproducts is obviously nuclear radiation discharge. The second thing is debris, tons of debris, which has shown up especially on the North West Coast,” he adds.
http://www.news1130.com/2013/12/30/starfish-wasting-disease-outbreak-could-be-due-to-radiation/
There are too many people drawing conclusions without enough facts. Me? I have no idea what is going on with Fukushima. And that is enough cause for alarm.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)From DSN: "Unfortunately, we have no data on the actual agent that causes SWS. Within the grand realm of possibility there is always a (slim?) possibility there is a connection with Fukushima, but nothing we’ve seen gives us any reason to think that."
http://deepseanews.com/2013/12/three-reasons-why-fukushima-radiation-has-nothing-to-do-with-starfish-wasting-syndrome/
At that link are some great informative comments and discussion.
At other places on that moderated blog, comments like some on this thread would be deleted. Not saying they should be, just that in many places they would be.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 26, 2014, 03:50 PM - Edit history (1)
why they know they can discard radiation.
Don't get me wrong. They have detected some radiation early in the incident in the northern pacific. We may still get very low levels, we are talking micro sieverts here, in the northern pacific. Yes, they have found it is bio concentrating in Tuna. This is a migratory fish, it starts life much closer to Japan, where concentrations are higher.
And you know I live south of you, so no, I do not take this lightly, but the star fish is quite possibly, from the UCSC research something that happens with some frequency with the population. Oh and it is also happening in the Atlantic, where we know there is no radiation from Fuku.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)however I did think it only fair to repeat that the experts are not completely ruling anything out given the situation in the Pacific. And we are not just talking about star fish populations. There have been some serious problems in the seal population, the sardines, etc. An unusual number of problems. And no real answers to explain exactly why.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)higher level animals (see tuna for example) have a far better chance. We have found Cecium in Tuna. I would not eat it, neither should you.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)How you can let that happen is weird. You write:
""...they know they can discard radiation."" and ""...happening in the Atlantic, where we know there is no radiation from Fuku.
There has been radiation in the pacific since weapons testing began. Fukushima is just the newest and probably largest dose ever.
In the Atlantic, radiation has been found. Fish have been detected with Cesium137 from Fukushima. The airborne fallout from Fukushima went clear around the N. Hemisphere... is still going around the world.
Please, quit spreading falsehoods.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)How hard should I start laughing at this point? You do not even understand the SC study you quoted.
Enough said.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)That's all the report says. Yes I posted it because that is part of the story. It's called balanced and fair research, something that is part of the scientific process. If they said they knew what was causing it, this thread would have never happened.
They don't know what is causing this problem. They don't know what caused it in earlier episodes, but this one is the worst yet. That's what the report states.
Obviously you didn't know about Fukushima spreading around the N. Hemisphere. Yet, you say they shut down the monitors on the west coast because you say they didn't want us to know how bad it was, and then you deny there was deposition on the west coast? You are all over the place. Unbelievable.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)http://www.eeb.ucsc.edu/pacificrockyintertidal/data-products/sea-star-wasting/updates.html
Please, for the love of god, and good science, just STOP!!!!
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)You have to be joking. The great nadine, telling someone else to stop?
I know it is hard for you to be caught spreading falsehoods, but that is your fault, not mine. In fact, your personal attacks on me show you are way in over your head and I'm just trying to keep you from drowning.
As in trying to save a drowning person, the most danger one is in is that the drowner may drown the saver. I know better.
So go back, read the facts, and when you can come up with any declarative science or something that proves my idea baseless, see me on shore.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)how not surprising.
Once again let me quote and bold the right section, and will keep posting it, how wrong you are on this that is. From the people DOING THE ACTUAL FRACKING RESEARCH THAT DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU.
http://www.eeb.ucsc.edu/pacificrockyintertidal/data-products/sea-star-wasting/updates.html
longship
(40,416 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 24, 2014, 04:40 AM - Edit history (1)
Not this shit again.
on edit: Of course, one sign of BS spamming is when the one posting it self-promotes their own thread by kicking it with even more BS.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)but whatever. In spite of my doubts about simply blaming everything on Fukushima, I do think it unfair to scoff at evidence before you have considered all possibilities.
So much easier to mock and congratulate yourself on your contribution to the conversation. Sorry. Some of us don't think the topic is very funny.
longship
(40,416 posts)Especially when one insists in reposting the same easily debunked crapola over and over.
It is because Fukushima is a serious matter that I ridicule those who would use it to inflame and fear monger by making shit up. Who does that help? Nobody.
When one does so repeatedly and does not respond to rational discussion, ridicule is all that is left.
The OP is wrong, and has been repeatedly shown to be wrong every time the same poster has posted it, multiple times now.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)so I do not have to go look for it again.
I will share by the way.
http://www.eeb.ucsc.edu/pacificrockyintertidal/data-products/sea-star-wasting/updates.html
longship
(40,416 posts)Much of it predates Fukushima Daiichi.
That does not stop ideologues from posting rubbish like this OP over and over again in these forums.
Best regards, my friend.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)will it have SOME effect? Yes, I suspect we will have a few cancer clusters, like we did after testing in the 50s, rather small, and hard to pinpoint.
Now you know what I think? We do have an Extinction Level Event going on, started 10K years ago. What else did we, as a species, start hard core 10K years ago? If you said agriculture you won the price.
But shh, don't tell them... or they will attack tractors next.
longship
(40,416 posts)
Love ya, Nadine.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Since the double disaster of the 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami that affected hundreds of thousands of people and seriously damaged the Fukushima Daichi power plant in Japan on 11 March 2011, minute traces of radioactive emissions from Fukushima have spread across the entire Northern Hemisphere. A monitoring network designed to detect signs of nuclear explosions picked up these traces from the stricken power plant. To date, more than 30 radionuclide stations that are part of the International Monitoring System have provided information on the spread of radioactive particles and noble gases from the Fukushima accident.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Scientists have released the results of a study on just how long it took the radioactive elements released from Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant into the ocean by the 2011 earthquake and tsunami to reach the west coast of North America.
Smith and fellow researchers started gathering samples of ocean water from as far as 930 miles off the coastline of British Columbia in June 2011, just 3 months after the disaster, then collected samples from the same sites every June through 2013.
Computer models and the measurements gathered so far suggest the levels of radiation off British Columbia will peak between this year and 2016, but will remain below 5 Becquerels per cubic meter.
"Those levels of cesium 137 are still well below natural levels of radioactivity in the ocean," Smith says.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/24309/20150102/how-quickly-did-fukushima-radiation-reach-north-america-and-when-will-it-peak.htm
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Orrex
(63,154 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 24, 2014, 03:42 PM - Edit history (1)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Time-traveling Nazi aliens are using radiation from Fukishima to poison the starfish. They know too much.
The dolphin die-off in the Atlantic is just a red herring (though I fear those birds will be next).
Though I will say congratulations on getting an OP up without a racial slur in it.
randome
(34,845 posts)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
Berlum
(7,044 posts)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
Octafish
(55,745 posts)No one knows what Fukushima is really doing to starfish and marine life in the Pacific or the rest of the world's waters.
The problem is the government of Japan has instituted a press lockdown by law. The government of the United States fired Gregory Jaczko, the head of the NRC who sounded the alarm about Fukushima during the first days of the disaster. The nuclear industry is so powerful, it can afford to silence critics in government, the media and academia who criticize it. So where can people go to find good information?
As for those mocking you for posting this thread, I doubt they understand why you prefer to err on the side of caution. I've read many of their replies to posts on Fukushima, seeing how few OPs they have started via GOOGLE. A common thread in their writings show they have added near nothing to what is known on the subject of the nuclear disaster, going back to March 11, 2011.
PS: Here's what the DOE says about plutonium:
What everyone should know:
DOE-STD-1128-98
Guide of Good Practices for Occupational Radiological Protection in Plutonium Facilities
EXCERPT...
4.2.3 Characteristics of Plutonium Contamination
There are few characteristics of plutonium contamination that are unique. Plutonium
contamination may be in many physical and chemical forms. (See Section 2.0 for the many
potential sources of plutonium contamination from combustion products of a plutonium fire
to radiolytic products from long-term storage.) [font color="red"]The one characteristic that many believe is
unique to plutonium is its ability to migrate with no apparent motive force.[/font color] Whether from
alpha recoil or some other mechanism, plutonium contamination, if not contained or
removed, will spread relatively rapidly throughout an area.
SOURCE (PDF file format): http://energy.gov/hss/downloads/doe-std-1128-98
Some science news that seems to have been missed, with Justin Bieber and everything...
J Environ Radioact. 2011 Dec 27. (Epub ahead of print)
Radionuclides from the Fukushima accident in the air over Lithuania: measurement and modelling approaches.
Lujanienė G, Byčenkienė S, Povinec PP, Gera M.
Source
Environmental Research Department, SRI Center for Physical Sciences and Technology, Savanoriu 231, 02300 Vilnius, Lithuania.
Abstract
Analyses of (131)I, (137)Cs and (134)Cs in airborne aerosols were carried out in daily samples in Vilnius, Lithuania after the Fukushima accident during the period of March-April, 2011. The activity concentrations of (131)I and (137)Cs ranged from 12 ?Bq/m(3) and 1.4 ?Bq/m(3) to 3700 ?Bq/m(3) and 1040 ?Bq/m(3), respectively. The activity concentration of (239,240)Pu in one aerosol sample collected from 23 March to 15 April, 2011 was found to be 44.5 nBq/m(3). The two maxima found in radionuclide concentrations were related to complicated long-range air mass transport from Japan across the Pacific, the North America and the Atlantic Ocean to Central Europe as indicated by modelling. HYSPLIT backward trajectories and meteorological data were applied for interpretation of activity variations of measured radionuclides observed at the site of investigation. (7)Be and (212)Pb activity concentrations and their ratios were used as tracers of vertical transport of air masses. Fukushima data were compared with the data obtained during the Chernobyl accident and in the post Chernobyl period. The activity concentrations of (131)I and (137)Cs were found to be by 4 orders of magnitude lower as compared to the Chernobyl accident. The activity ratio of (134)Cs/(137)Cs was around 1 with small variations only. The activity ratio of (238)Pu/(239,240)Pu in the aerosol sample was 1.2, indicating a presence of the spent fuel of different origin than that of the Chernobyl accident.
SOURCE: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22206700
And what a little bird told no one in particular...
Plutonium bioaccumulation in seabirds
Dagmara I. Strumińska-Parulska, Bogdan Skwarzec, Jacek Fabisiak
University of Gdańsk, Faculty of Chemistry, Analytics and Environmental Radiochemistry Chair, Sobieskiego 18, 80-952 Gdańsk, Poland
Received 7 April 2011. Revised 5 July 2011. Accepted 16 July 2011. Available online 23 August 2011.
The aim of the paper was plutonium (238Pu and 239+240Pu) determination in seabirds, permanently or temporarily living in northern Poland at the Baltic Sea coast. Together 11 marine birds species were examined: 3 species permanently residing in the southern Baltic, 4 species of wintering birds and 3 species of migrating birds. The obtained results indicated plutonium is non-uniformly distributed in organs and tissues of analyzed seabirds. The highest plutonium content was found in the digestion organs and feathers, the smallest in skin and muscles. The plutonium concentration was lower in analyzed species which feed on fish and much higher in herbivorous species. The main source of plutonium in analyzed marine birds was global atmospheric fallout.
Highlights
► We determined 239+240Pu in seabirds living in northern Poland at the Baltic Sea. ► We noticed plutonium was non-uniformly distributed in organs and tissues of seabirds. ► We found the highest plutonium content in the digestion organs and feathers. ► We found Pu content was lower in birds feeding on fish and higher in herbivorous.
SOURCE: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X11001676
Gee. The plutonium must be from Chernobyl, seeing how Lithuania's clear on the other side of the world from Fukushima. Right?
Invisible things don't just "move." Right? Ask any global warming denier or GOP candidate.
Anyone remember reading about any of this in their local newspaper?
No?
Well, thank RobertEarl for bringing the subject up on DU, where it can be discussed -- refuted, supported or whatever. My point is, we can know about it.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)The starfish die off he references is caused by an infection that's been propagating through the population long before Fukishima.
There are legitimate concerns about the dangers of the radiation, but associating them with crackpot claims like in the OP does them no service at all.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)So what killed starfish previously must also be killing them today?
Anything about plutonium from Fukushima scattered who knows where bother you?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Yes, one of the worst nuclear accidents in human history concerns me, and the lack of media coverage is infuriating.
Which is also why I get so fucking irritated when discussions about it center around claims that make me want to slit my wrists with Occam's razor.
Could the radiation be playing a role? Possibly. I don't know. What I do know is that people who do more than armchair science reporting believe the die off is primarily caused by a wasting disease.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)I don't want to read anything else today. That will be the greatest thing I've read!
Love it!
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)http://www.ocregister.com/articles/disease-534453-starfish-wasting.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_24446327/disease-causes-west-coast-starfish-deaths
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/west-coast-starfish-turning-goo-latest-mass-animal/story?id=20781468#
Who's right? Marine biologists or anonymous posters on an online discussion forum? I'll go with the former.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)but the amount of ridicule heaped on anyone posting any information related to Fukushima around here reminds me of the concerted efforts to squelch discussion of BP's effect on the Gulf.
Rather than always using ridicule, sarcasm and snark to attack posters with legitimate concerns, maybe the DU experts should post what they consider valid information about the possible effects of Fukushima. Seems fair.
I don't think serious discussion of all possibilities hurts any of us -- not half as much as a pig pile of mean comments meant only to stir shit and scare off people who would like to monitor the potential effects of Fukushima on the West Coast of the US.
Maybe the conclusions are wrong. But people posting snark are not the ones that have proven this is the case.
Like you said Octafish it is as though DU's resident experts on all things scientific have decided the world is flat and will listen to no other discussion period end of story. That's just my perception. I am not a scientist, but I am very concerned. And it makes me sad that even posting concerns/questions for discussion on DU makes one the subject of ridicule. If that is the scientific method at work, I can see how such cavalier attitudes have helped put our planet in the precarious environmental state it is in today.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Precisely. I don't see most people here unwilling to talk about Fukushima, but the ludicrous claims being made by some about the radiation are damaging the discussion far more than a handful of snarky comments.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)rather than attacking the person making the claims.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)When an argument has been so thoroughly debunked, there just has to be a time when people pushing it have to be just laughed at.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Because that's what this OP is. The poster has repeatedly copied and pasted this exact same post here numerous times for at least the last month. So unless you reply to "Nigerian princes" trying to examine their "claims" rather than laugh and delete their emails, then you know exactly why people are dismissing this OP.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)especially during the Gulf/BP disaster. And I also was mocked when I did. I have family near Fukushima. I live in the PNW. I don't want to be mocked for being alarmed and wanting to talk about what is happening.
I am not an expert, but I want to stay informed. I mostly don't post about it anymore. There is a chilling effect when I open thread after thread on Fukushima and they are filled with personal attacks, belittling comments, etc. It might not be so noticeable if there were more threads on the topic that contained "information" that was considered valid.
On DU, one of the strengths is that I get to hear the opinions of others. Some DUers are incredibly knowledgeable about issues they feel passionate about. Madfloridian comes to mind. She mostly posts articles on education topics, and she is IMO a foremost expert on the topic. I appreciate her insoghts on the issues she follows. Same with some of the other voices here. And that is especially true of the some strong environmentalists at DU who consistently post information that help me understand and be better informed. Do you really think it fair to equate their focus on specific topics to Nigerian spam? Even if as you say this OP has a history, it is as far as I can see about two things. He is dismissed for citing EneNews as a source. And there are many who disagree with his conclusions. They use ad hominem attacks rather than trying to have real conversations about the topic.
I am interested in those who presented opposing information in this thread to refute the OP. But that really didn't happen very often, did it?
I guess I wonder if there is a better way to address the concerns about Fukushima and the seemingly unrelated/or possibly directly related string of catastrophes occurring in the Pacific. When I respond to posts on DU it is usually the topic I want to discuss, not the poster.
longship
(40,416 posts)Especially when they are repeatedly posted by the same person.
Then, ridicule is entirely appropriate, and maybe even obligatory.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I have a brother in law like that. He is absolutely certain of what is right and what is wrong. He has no problem making that determination and his certainty is enviable. I find this trait especially typical of the conservative. Liberals often argue among themselves about pros and cons of an issue.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)discussion. I would hope that politically liberal posters like here in DU wouldnt either mock or ridicule.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Robert is provably wrong.
This is not "I think blue is the best color." This is "radiation from Fukushima is killing the starfish."
Which is demonstrably wrong because:
--The die-off started months before the accident.
--The starfish are apparently getting their "Fukushima plutonium" from horse mussels around the Aleutian Islands, even though the starfish affected are along the West Coast and nowhere near the Aleutians AND the plutonium found in those mussels more likely came from the former nuclear test sites in the Aleutians.
Sorry, there is no "subjective" in scientific claims. There is either right or wrong, and Robert is wrong.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)But "willfully ignorant" is probably a better description than "wrong" since the poster has been corrected hundreds of times by dozens of posters and plenty of links!
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)It is possible that plutonium is killing the starfish.
Through all your posts you have not provided one bit of science that counters that simple statement. Why? Because you can't. Any science you can come up with about nuclear deposition in the pacific proves: It is possible that plutonium is killing the starfish.
I don't know why your knickers are on fire over this simple proposition... maybe it has to do with your screen name?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)The study you cited (of a former nuclear test site, by the way) only possibly attributed an increase in cesium isotopes due to Fukushima, and in fact, noted that uranium, plutonium, and americium isotope levels were around pre-2000 levels, and were probably even lower due to decay.
You apparently didn't read anything I showed you, otherwise you would have seen how that completely blows your hypothesis about plutonium killing the starfish out of contention. The simple fact that the die off started months before the accident further complicates it, and the fact that the plutonium-infected mussels are hundreds of miles from the starfish affected by the die off doesn't help either.
And cute reference to my screen name. Despite the fact that I've been clear in my posting here that I want to see all nuclear weapons dismantled and destroyed and do not favor the expansion of nuclear power, it's clear just from my choice in handle that I'm a pawn of the nuclear power industry.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)You have not posted one article that disproves It is possible that plutonium is killing the starfish.
The DoE report clearly states an increase in plutonium in the mussels tested. The only explosion the pacific has endured since the last nuclear test was the explosions at Fukushima.
Besides the US DoE report, there has been pointed out to you that other monitors around the N. Hemisphere have detected plutonium from Fukushima.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)misconstrue environmental studies, and demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of radiation (half a nano siervet is NOT going to adversely affect your health by any stretch of the imagination).
So you grasp at straws, move goalposts, and finally resort to personal attacks when those fail. Just give it a rest. ENENews is a fraud that exists almost solely as the WorldNetDaily of the Fukushima story.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Science does have certain parameters, and to say that "right or wrong is subjective" is equivalent to rejecting science and all its foundational axioms.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)scientific method. None of your arguments prove that radiation from Fukushima isnt killing the starfish. You have a theory, but it's your theory based on stuff you read. In spite of your certainty, you are not the decider of what is right and what is wrong.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)If we're going to argue over the scientific method, then it might help to not confuse basic terminology.
Second, subjectivity is the very antithesis to the scientific method, which demands one put aside personal biases and preconceptions--that is, to strive for objectivity.
Finally, I don't need to prove a negative. The burden of proving that Fukushima radiation is killing the starfish is on the people claiming so; all I've pointed out is how their arguments don't stack up against other evidence and that I'm not convinced at all.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)SWD (Starfish Wasting Disease) started before the tsunami / fukushima.
How hard was that?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)That's the only way that fukushima could be the source of SWD.
Here's a link to some, you know, actual science.
http://deepseanews.com/2014/01/is-the-sea-floor-littered-with-dead-animals-due-to-radiation-no/
http://deepseanews.com/2013/12/three-reasons-why-fukushima-radiation-has-nothing-to-do-with-starfish-wasting-syndrome/
Starfish Wasting Syndrome Occurs on the East Coast as well as the Pacific. Many of the accounts alleging a Fukushima connection to Starfish Wasting Syndrome forget that there are also accounts of SWS on the east coast of the United States affecting the asteriid Asterias rubens. There is no evidence (or apparent mechanism) for Fukushima radiation to have reached the east coast and therefore the Fukushima idea is again not supported.
No other life in these regions seems to have been affected. If we watch the original British Columbia Pycnopodia die-off videos, and the later Washington state die-off vidoes, one cannot help but notice that other than the starfish, EVERYTHING else remains alive. Fish. Seaweed, encrusting animals. etc.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)If a hypothesis can be falsified simply by virtue of an anachronism, then it's a horribly weak hypothesis.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)is NOT claiming it has a bit to do with radiation. Moreover, the phenomena is also occurring in the Atlantic. Which Earl avoids with a passion, since geographically it is even harder to explain how star fish from the Atlantic reached the Aleutians.
See here for the Rhode Island outbreak as detailed by the WAPO
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/sea-stars-are-wasting-away-in-larger-numbers-on-a-wider-scale-in-two-oceans/2013/11/22/05652194-4be1-11e3-be6b-d3d28122e6d4_story.html
It also started before the accident, and it seems to be a repeat of an outbreak in the 1980s. And if you read native american lore, this happens with star fish. We do not know why, but it is like either a virus or a bacteria, likely both, spreading like wild fire across the population every so often. With humans think smallpox, or any other highly infectious disease that used to run thought the population.
I am worried about radiation into the environment, but ascribing something that is not related to Fukushima does a diservice and steals credibility from those who want to have their hair on fire over this. The poster actually believes that Fuku is an extinction level event. An extinction level event would be the Cambrian Extinction or for that matter the asteroid that hit the planet sixty five million years ago. Scientists are making the argument that we might very well be living through one, the holocene extinction, and it started well before we even split the atom. It is likely related to human activity, likely not 100 percent, and it has to do with climate change and habitat destruction, not radiation.
So there you have it. He keeps pushing this even when his sources contradict it.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)The radiation from weapon testing, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, has spread around the world. It has been found just about anywhere they have looked for it.
You keep saying shit about me and spreading falsehoods makes you look no better than many others in this thread.
Here's a link you NEED to read:
Fukushima-related radioactive materials measured across entire Northern Hemisphere
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110407121343.htm
Since the double disaster of the 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami that affected hundreds of thousands of people and seriously damaged the Fukushima Daichi power plant in Japan on 11 March 2011, minute traces of radioactive emissions from Fukushima have spread across the entire Northern Hemisphere. A monitoring network designed to detect signs of nuclear explosions picked up these traces from the stricken power plant. To date, more than 30 radionuclide stations that are part of the International Monitoring System have provided information on the spread of radioactive particles and noble gases from the Fukushima accident.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)So, I looked at your profile. It states: Location: stoned.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)you fit Einstein's definition.
zappaman
(20,606 posts) nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)we are living through an extinction event, called the Holocene extinction. It started BEFORE we spilt one atom.
I mean, unless my history fails and we started splitting atoms around 10K years ago that is
The Holocene extinction is the widespread, ongoing extinction of species during the present Holocene epoch (since around 10,000 BC). The large number of extinctions span numerous families of plants and animals including mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and arthropods; a sizeable fraction of these extinctions are occurring in the rainforests. Between 1500 and 2009, 875 extinctions have been documented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.[1] However, most extinctions go undocumented. According to the Species-area theory and based on upper-bound estimating, up to 140,000 species per year may be the present rate of extinction.[2]
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Holocene_extinction_event.html
You are fixated with the idea that Fukushima is a problem to the point that it is an ELE.
Some of us like to have a clear view as to what is going on, and right at the moment I would not recommend people buy shelf stable milk, like I did when the accident first happened, and people here mercilessly made fun of me for suggesting something the US Military itself suggests when fall out is expected. And yes, we expected and did get fallout. And yes, it does not help when the US Government turns off Rad Monitors for "maintenance" it just leads to a lot of tinfoil theories.
Right now you are tying EVERYTHING WRONG WITH THE ENVIRONMENT to Fukushima. Sorry, but no cigar. Not everything is tied to even the Chicago Fermi Reactor experiment in the 1930s either.
Yes, there is an ELE under way, no, it does not fit YOUR TIMELINE, nor was it accelerated due to your timeline. Climate change and other pressures we humans have put on the environment have a lot more to do with it than all nuclear testing has.
What you are doing is not rational, it is not scientific nor does it help those of us who are truly concerned about Fukushima. Once again, Wasting Disease has zero to do with radiation... or all we know about the animal kingdom is quite wrong. The highest concentrations of radio isotopes are in mussels near the bikini islands (from open air testing during the cold war). Star Fish are NOT MIGRATORY. Nor is there enough radiation in the environment to actually do this. We are talking of micro sieverts. You understand what that means? I make fun of the eat your bananas crowd, but there are things in the environment, naturally occurring that have a higher count per minute.
It is to the point that if I want to discuss this, it will not be on DU, and for that I thank YOU.
Starfish have had this before, and from Santa Cruz web page
http://www.eeb.ucsc.edu/pacificrockyintertidal/data-products/sea-star-wasting/updates.html
Latest update, as of Dec 13, 2013.
Stop this, you are not doing anybody any favors.
I will not ridicule you, but I expect you to get personal now, as you always do. So have a good day.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)To this.
http://www.eeb.ucsc.edu/pacificrockyintertidal/data-products/sea-star-wasting/updates.html
Yes, they have detected radio nucleotides from Fukushima, no, according to the scientists doing the research there is no correlation.
You even understand how science is done? I don't think so.
So to translate science speak, they have not found evidence of this radiation causing wasting disease. If anybody is spreading falsehoods here it is you.
Dish-gallop all you want, it is not going to change that. And you have made any legitimate discussion impossible, congrats.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/101682144
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024259210
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023849451
(and those are just the OPs)
mocking and ridicule is deserved.
maybe you should educate yourself a little since it seems you need some help on this..
http://deepseanews.com/2013/12/three-reasons-why-fukushima-radiation-has-nothing-to-do-with-starfish-wasting-syndrome/
or maybe you should just stick to ENEnews like Robert so you can fill your head with BULLSHIT.
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/who-behind-enenews.2011-06-14
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/fukushimaradiationpsyops19may12.shtml
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)unless it's "deserved".
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Just now saw this. Aren't discussions the best way to discover what's what?
Sad that so many can't discuss, all they can do is just cuss. I am learning to ignore those types.
Anyway, if we are ever going to be able to mitigate the damage from nukes, it will begin by having an education. Did not the founders of this country understand that education was what would keep our country alive and vibrant? Yes, they did, and so it is sad to see many here who are like the book burners still showing up and trying to limit our knowledge to what is found only in their own little worlds.
Logical
(22,457 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)http://www.eeb.ucsc.edu/pacificrockyintertidal/data-products/sea-star-wasting/updates.html
They are particularly clueless. Or just part of the conspiracy. I don't know. This horse is to the point of being beyond liquid pulp. Seriously, let it rest.
And yes, it is a serious matter, but this particular side of it falls in the category of rather unhelpful
Bennyboy
(10,440 posts)Which is probably more emblematic of the FUKU disaster that the starfish die off which has been disproved repeatedly as being related to FUKU, at least directly..
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Stop this, it is extremely irresponsible. It takes away from the true concerns, long and short term, of the disaster.
MineralMan
(146,241 posts)That much is certain, since the die-off started before the Fukushima disaster. And that's the problem with your post.
By attempting to link things to Fukushima that are not linked to it, you dilute your argument. And, like homeopathic remedies, dilution reduces the value of things. For homeopathy, the dilution continues until there is nothing left of the active principle at all. With Fukushima, every dilution detracts from the real issue, which is that nuclear power generation is not safe, and cannot be made to be safe.
The realities of Fukushima are more than adequate as a condemnation of Tepco and how this was all handled. Your introduction of an irrelevant and unconnected situation serves only to dilute the discussion.
Further, you dilute your own credibility, which further limits your capacity to make your point. I strongly urge you to step back, avoid enenews, which does not even bother to fact check the material it posts, and look for real reasons to discuss Fukushima and its impact. Focus on real information that is credible and correct, and you will have more impact. Focus on what is nonsense and incorrect, and you lose the argument every time.
Just a suggestion...
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Unlike the others who refuse to discuss this and just spew dumb words, you've managed to spew with smart words.
Others should study your way.
But what would also be cool is if you were to mention about mussels, cesium, plutonium, the radioactive pacific, or anything focused on the problem. Because your whole focus seems to be on me.
Ah, well, like I says, you've done it with smart words. Big gold star for you!!
MineralMan
(146,241 posts)I suggest you read those smart words again, this time for understanding. Truly.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)And pretty much just a pretty "STFU".
The science is quite clear.
Plutonium, from nuclear activities, has been found in the pacific. It comes from nuclear testing and power plant emissions.
Mussels have been found with plutonium in their bodies.
Starfish eat mussels.
Starfish are dying from a mysterious wasting disease. Scientists studying the problem are unsure why there is this wasting disease.
I have posted a number of articles with links as background to this story.
If you can offer anything more than "No it's not, because I say so" here's your chance.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Started before Fukushima. Not confined to the pacific.
What, you think people will forget that this has been debunked?
http://deepseanews.com/2014/01/is-the-sea-floor-littered-with-dead-animals-due-to-radiation-no/
alarimer
(16,245 posts)The cause is usually a bacteria and has happened before.
http://www.eeb.ucsc.edu/pacificrockyintertidal/data-products/sea-star-wasting/
What you are doing is fear-mongering with absolutely no evidence. Besides, if it were true, other species would be affected.
Sea stars are called "keystone" species because it can alter the rocky intertidal where it occurs.
Please read up on REAL science before you spread misinformation.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)That is fact from the US government. Link below to that report.
Fact: Starfish feed on mussels. If plutonium is found in mussels that are eaten by starfish it means the plutonium is now in starfish.
Fact: Radiation can cause illness in those organisms that ingest radionuclides.
So your little stab is really anti-factual and anti-science.
******************
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
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
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)and you have jumped to the conclusion it is causing death in another species. That is not scientific evidence. That is activism. Surely you have something they found in the remains of starfish?
longship
(40,416 posts)Learn some god damn scientific method, for Christ sakes.
Listen to your arguments:
But the sea star wasting began years before Fukushima and appears to also be in areas outside the Pacific..
It's still radiation!!!!!!!! (Moving the goalposts)
The radiation levels are below any danger level.
Fukushima is melting all the sea stars on the Pacific coast!!!!!!!
Et cetera. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
How many times are you going to post this same utter bullshit? How many times do DUers have to ridicule this preposterous claim before you give up?
When will it be that the only responders to your lame posts making this claim are solely your own self-promoting Gish Gallop kicks?
:crickets:
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)(I don't count your many self promotional kicks.)
When does one give up?
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Care to bet?
longship
(40,416 posts)I suspect it's a bot.
longship
(40,416 posts)Who could have predicted this?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024393727
Fucking amazing.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)because there's not one thing I can do about it. As with all other global catastrophes, we'll either adapt or we'll die.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)But there are actions we can take to limit exposures and remedies for contamination.
Here is a link from the US government Oak Ridge labs that gives a good hint as to what citizens can do when exposed.
http://orise.orau.gov/reacts/guide/measure.htm
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I would believe it. I am disappointed to see supposedly "politically liberal" posters here trying to bully you into silence.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)This is a matter that should not be covered up. The possible implications are too huge.
Being as there are another 400 reactors and waste pools spread around the world, the health of the planet is at stake. People need to be aware of what can happen so they can protect their families. First, tho, we must get past the denial phase as projected by some replies on this thread.
We've come a long way. Pre-Fukushima, 50% of the people still clung to the notion nukes were safe. Our next step needs to be remedies and solutions to counter the effects of contamination. Our government needs to get past the denial stage and get actively involved in medical care.
Of course, they go and admit that nuclear radiation is harming the planet and past governments begin to look like fools. Which they were. Are.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)getting old and will be extremely expensive to dismantle, so we keep kicking the can down the road. Transferring the problem to our children and grandchildren.
One of my biggest concerns are the tons and tons of highly radioactive spent fuel being "temporarily" (indefinitely) stored all across the nation.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)It is the elephant in the room. The capability to pollute the planet were these nuclear dumps to keep occurring is flat out scary.
We've come a long way since 3/11. Even a few professional nukesters have opened up and laid the truth on the line; shined a light on the elephant.
We are pushing our luck with the 100 reactors we have in the US. TMI blew up and much polluted water and air have flowed from reactors, but no Fukushima or Chernobyl types near home. The clock is ticking.
We know better than ignore it, but I guess there is a feeling of security for some in their denial? Mass public opinion is our only tool to change the course and clean up our mess. We need the deniers to join. Thus, education continues.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)It did not by any stretch of the imagination, "blow up." 
Chernobyl blew up, TMI suffered a partial meltdown that was contained and caused absolutely zero instances of cancer in the surrounding community.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1405170/
Just to be clear.
And no, the reactor did not blow up, it was a partial meltdown, in that we agree, but to say zero instances is just absurd.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Then a University of Pittsburgh study found no causal link between increased cancer rates and radiation from TMI.
So, no incidents of cancer stemming from TMI radiation leaking.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)more than statistical variance.
They have been taken by a few of the usual suspects as evidence that the government is lying, (such as prison planet), and no, it is not a great number of them, see again things like the Albion Monitor for the GOVERNMENT IS LYING RUN!!!!. But to say zero is just silly. The FIRST STUDY done by the University of Columbia indicated that, it was repeated... and we have SOME cases, as in a small number, as in a very small number. This is just like our friend pushing his crap that micro sieverts are causing wasting disease in star fish, which is known not to.
It also puts credibility at risk of nuclear fans. Just saying. The two links go back to NIH just saying.
By the way, I expect to see higher rates of cancer due to the nuclear cloud from Fukushima in the Western Coast of the US early in the incident and the fact that detectors went strangely off line tells me they were expecting higher radiation than they were willing to tell us, and that will add to the conspiracy theories. No, not that many EPA monitors go off line for maintenance during a critical time at the same time. The numbers, likely, will be at the same level as suspected after nuclear open air testing during the cold war, which is some cases. (More from the testing in NV incidentally, and a few of those from troops purposely exposed to it)
I expect to see a lot more cases in Japan, though given most of the crap was blown to sea, a lot less than was seen after Chernobyl.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)No matter how many times someone responds with the facts, you just don't understand that it isn't radiation.
Most people with ordinary intelligence could at least grasp the FACT that radiation levels in the Pacific as a whole are still dropping, because back in the nuclear testing era, we contaminated the Pacific more than Fukushima Daiichi ever will. I've slowly come around to the view that there is closeted xenophobia or racism involved in the Fukushima-killing-the-world craze, because it is SO contrary to reality. There is localized contamination off the coast of Japan, but overall Pacific measurements of radiation are not increasing, and the US and other nations, not Japan, are responsible for the high-than-natural levels.
I realize you are incapable of understanding that you are wrong, but for those poor innocents who haven't seen it, here's once again an article by one of the world's leading experts on, you guessed it, starfish:
http://deepseanews.com/2013/12/three-reasons-why-fukushima-radiation-has-nothing-to-do-with-starfish-wasting-syndrome/
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)There are a few links on this thread that totally debunk your idea that the pacific is cleaner. Have you not read any of the rest of this thread?
It is obvious you don't want to hear anything but good news. So post some good news about Fukushima.
Post something about how sea life in the pacific is healthy. And not just your opinion, because we can see your opinion is clouded by denial.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts) longship
(40,416 posts)
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)I believe the fallout from the Fukushima disaster has only just begun. Time will tell US the FULL impact and range.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)We see things the same. It has just begun. The marine scientists who have been studying the contamination in the Pacific have described how the radiation is approaching the US and are calling for funding so they can continue research.
Seems like our government would be interested in funding that research? Maybe we can encourage that?
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)Many times a problem needs to become acute, before it's acknowledged, then anything done about it. I hope researchers stay on this one.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)Oceanography, Biology, and the Geosciences. What I have been hearing is that while there isn't anything definitive pointing towards Fukushima we likewise can't dismiss it either. If any scientists is worth their salt they would not jump to immediate conclusions.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)True science demands looking at all possible reasons for anomalies.
The mass wasting of starfish demands such a look. So far no one has been able to come up with a reason.
In looking at such things it behooves a scientist to look at the most recent environmental change in the first examination. I see Fukushima as the most recent change and have gone from there.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)Typically mass extinctions in the geologic past took a long period of time to occur. But a sudden dying off suggests a mass event that is on a category of catastrophic. It is fair game to argue that Fukushima is that catastrophic event that may trigger this problem.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Which frankly seems more likely than Fuku radiation. Or a massive population increase proved unsustainable. Or a parasitic infection.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)as to what is causing the sudden dying off the starfish. Starfish are echinoderms that live in the benthic zone. Anyways the benthic zone of oceans tend to have denser colder water and warmer water on top. It is true that all marine life are more sensitive to small changes to temperature compared to terrestrial life. Still, if it was a temperature change as the culprit not only would the starfish die but all other life forms that live in the benthic zone.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)El Niño caused the last one, and marine biologists have found that one thing the affected areas have in common this time is elevated temperatures.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)because benthiic bottom feeders tend to be the most vulnerable to anthropogenic influences/mistakes (eg BP oil spill on the gulf) as they don't move around often unless necessary.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)This idea is from a commenter on the Deep Sea News site, where they were discussing the issue of sea star wasting. It has to do with the cesium and strontium known to be emissions from Fukushima, besides plutonium. 'K' is the symbol for potassium, 'Ca' is the symbol for calcium. Thanks for chiming in, Harmony. Below is the copy from DSNews.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
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.
*********
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)from the idiots doing the actual research...
[div class=“excerpt”]The cause of the wasting event is still unknown. Researchers from universities including Cornell, University of Rhode Island, Brown, and Roger Williams continue to work to determine whether the root cause of the disease can be attributed to a pathogen, and many groups are looking for patterns in the geographic extent and spread of wasting syndrome, which might suggest certain environmental factors as possible causes. There has been substantial speculation in the media that the disease could be a result of increased radiation from the nuclear power plant disaster in Fukushima, Japan. We have no evidence to suggest that radiation is a likely culprit.
http://www.eeb.ucsc.edu/pacificrockyintertidal/data-products/sea-star-wasting/updates.html
gopiscrap
(23,724 posts)a result of climate change...I live about a mile from a NW beach
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Fukushima-related radioactive materials measured across entire Northern Hemisphere
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110407121343.htm
""Since the double disaster of the 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami that affected hundreds of thousands of people and seriously damaged the Fukushima Daichi power plant in Japan on 11 March 2011, minute traces of radioactive emissions from Fukushima have spread across the entire Northern Hemisphere. A monitoring network designed to detect signs of nuclear explosions picked up these traces from the stricken power plant. To date, more than 30 radionuclide stations that are part of the International Monitoring System have provided information on the spread of radioactive particles and noble gases from the Fukushima accident.""
*************************
Point being it is adding up, this radiation
There is more and more of it in the oceans. Some previous wasting could have been because of Chernobyl and weapon testing. Pretty much anywhere in the N. Hemisphere. Those deposits could be contributors. The DoE report below details that they still find traces in the sea life from Alaska tests.
Now we have Fukushima. Not only did it make deposits via air transport, but it now has been found in the NW pacific as described in another link below.
It is adding up. Spreading. The whole N. Pacific is now contaminated. Not making this up, it is all real science as linked below in follow up replies of mine.
*********************
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 excerpted listing for plutonium found in the mussels that were tested. This finding confirms the idea that plutonium can be passed up the food chain to the starfish.
http://www.lm.doe.gov/Amchitka/Sites.aspx
Title: 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.
(One snip from report about the amounts found pg 226)
* Plutonium-239 — 4.194 pCi/kg Horse Mussel tissue
******************
Starfish facts
Diet of the starfish >> source wikipedia
Most species are generalist predators, eating microalgae, sponges, bivalves, snails and other small animals. Some species are detritivores, eating decomposing organic material and faecal matter. The crown-of-thorns starfish consumes coral polyps. The processes of feeding and capture may be aided by special parts; Pisaster brevispinus, the short-spined pisaster from the West Coast of America, can use a set of specialized tube feet to dig itself deep into the soft substrate to extract prey (usually clams). Grasping the shellfish, the starfish slowly pries open the prey's shell by wearing out its abductor muscle, and then inserts its inverted stomach into the crack to digest the soft tissues. The gap between the valves need only be a fraction of a millimeter wide for the stomach to gain entry.
*****************
Ecological impact of starfish >>>> source wikipedia
Starfish devouring mussel
Pisaster ochraceus consuming a mussel in central California
Starfish are keystone species in their respective marine communities. Their relatively large sizes, diverse diets and ability to adapt to different environments makes them ecologically important. The term "keystone species" was in fact first used by Robert Paine in 1966 to describe a starfish, Pisaster ochraceus. When studying the low intertidal coasts of Washington state, Paine found that predation by P. ochraceus was a major factor in the diversity of species. Experimental removals of this top predator from a stretch of shoreline resulted in lower species diversity and the eventual domination of Mytilus mussels, which were able to outcompete other organisms for space and resources. Similar results were found in a 1971 study of Stichaster australis on the intertidal coast of the South Island of New Zealand. S. australis was found to have removed most of a batch of transplanted mussels within two or three months of their placement, while in an area from which S. australis had been removed, the mussels increased in number dramatically, overwhelming the area and threatening biodiversity.
Survival of ocean warming and ph change for mussels
A 2009 study found that P. ochraceus is unlikely to be affected by ocean acidification as severely as other marine animals with calcareous skeletons. In other groups, structures made of calcium carbonate are vulnerable to dissolution when the pH is lowered. Researchers found that when P. ochraceus were exposed to 21 °C (70 °F) and 770 ppm carbon dioxide (beyond rises expected in the next century), they were relatively unaffected. Their survivability is likely due to the nodular nature of their skeletons, which are able to compensate for a shortage of carbonate by growing more fleshy tissue.
******************
Links and other sources
Lead Researcher: Fukushima pollution may be causing sea star epidemic on West Coast — Sea urchins, sea cucumbers also affected — “Something’s making them susceptible”… “It’s unlike anything we’ve seen”… “Populations go locally extinct overnight, literally”
http://enenews.com/lead-researcher-fukushima-pollution-a-cause-of-epidemic-wiping-out-starfish-along-west-coast-sea-urchins-and-sea-cucumbers-also-affected-something-is-making-them-susceptible-infection-it
Experts: Fukushima can’t be excluded as factor in sea stars turning to goo along West Coast; It hasn’t been ruled out — They’re “particularly proficient” at absorbing radioisotopes; 1,000 times more plutonium than fish
http://enenews.com/colonies-of-starfish-turning-to-mush-disintegrating-into-white-goo-experts-we-cant-exclude-fukushima-radiation-it-hasnt-been-ruled-out-starfish-particularly-proficient-at-absorbing-ra
*************************
Newest report of Fukushima contamination in the Pacific
This report describes how radionuclides from Fukushima were found in the water offshore in the Pacific. The report is the first to detail this fact. It goes on to say that the contamination is due to reach shore this year. And that much more sampling must be done.
http://www.pices.int/publications/presentations/PICES-2013/2013-MEQ/MEQ-1700-Smith.pdf
*************
At this site is a request for funding for more pacific research of Fukushima contamination:
http://phys.org/news/2014-01-radioactive-ocean.html
***********************
From a counter opinion site
At the following link from Deep Sea News, in the comments section, one commenter offered up some good suggestions to the scientists there.
http://deepseanews.com/2013/12/three-reasons-why-fukushima-radiation-has-nothing-to-do-with-starfish-wasting-syndrome/
*****************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.
***********************
The ocean ecologists are alarmed
Here is a link to a research study concerning the starfish.
http://www.eeb.ucsc.edu/pacificrockyintertidal/data-products/sea-star-wasting/
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)[div class=“excerpt”]The cause of the wasting event is still unknown. Researchers from universities including Cornell, University of Rhode Island, Brown, and Roger Williams continue to work to determine whether the root cause of the disease can be attributed to a pathogen, and many groups are looking for patterns in the geographic extent and spread of wasting syndrome, which might suggest certain environmental factors as possible causes. There has been substantial speculation in the media that the disease could be a result of increased radiation from the nuclear power plant disaster in Fukushima, Japan. We have no evidence to suggest that radiation is a likely culprit.
http://www.eeb.ucsc.edu/pacificrockyintertidal/data-products/sea-star-wasting/updates.html
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)SNIPPED
No one knows what Fukushima is really doing to starfish and marine life in the Pacific or the rest of the world's waters.
The problem is the government of Japan has instituted a press lockdown by law. The government of the United States fired Gregory Jaczko, the head of the NRC who sounded the alarm about Fukushima during the first days of the disaster. The nuclear industry is so powerful, it can afford to silence critics in government, the media and academia who criticize it. So where can people go to find good information?
As for those mocking you for posting this thread, I doubt they understand why you prefer to err on the side of caution. I've read many of their replies to posts on Fukushima, seeing how few OPs they have started via GOOGLE. A common thread in their writings show they have added near nothing to what is known on the subject of the nuclear disaster, going back to March 11, 2011.
PS: Here's what the DOE says about plutonium:
What everyone should know:
DOE-STD-1128-98
Guide of Good Practices for Occupational Radiological Protection in Plutonium Facilities
EXCERPT...
4.2.3 Characteristics of Plutonium Contamination
There are few characteristics of plutonium contamination that are unique. Plutonium
contamination may be in many physical and chemical forms. (See Section 2.0 for the many
potential sources of plutonium contamination from combustion products of a plutonium fire
to radiolytic products from long-term storage.) The one characteristic that many believe is
unique to plutonium is its ability to migrate with no apparent motive force. Whether from
alpha recoil or some other mechanism, plutonium contamination, if not contained or
removed, will spread relatively rapidly throughout an area.
SOURCE (PDF file format): http://energy.gov/hss/downloads/doe-std-1128-98
Some science news that seems to have been missed, with Justin Bieber and everything...
J Environ Radioact. 2011 Dec 27. (Epub ahead of print)
Radionuclides from the Fukushima accident in the air over Lithuania: measurement and modelling approaches.
Lujanienė G, Byčenkienė S, Povinec PP, Gera M.
Source
Environmental Research Department, SRI Center for Physical Sciences and Technology, Savanoriu 231, 02300 Vilnius, Lithuania.
Abstract
Analyses of (131)I, (137)Cs and (134)Cs in airborne aerosols were carried out in daily samples in Vilnius, Lithuania after the Fukushima accident during the period of March-April, 2011. The activity concentrations of (131)I and (137)Cs ranged from 12 ?Bq/m(3) and 1.4 ?Bq/m(3) to 3700 ?Bq/m(3) and 1040 ?Bq/m(3), respectively. The activity concentration of (239,240)Pu in one aerosol sample collected from 23 March to 15 April, 2011 was found to be 44.5 nBq/m(3). The two maxima found in radionuclide concentrations were related to complicated long-range air mass transport from Japan across the Pacific, the North America and the Atlantic Ocean to Central Europe as indicated by modelling. HYSPLIT backward trajectories and meteorological data were applied for interpretation of activity variations of measured radionuclides observed at the site of investigation. (7)Be and (212)Pb activity concentrations and their ratios were used as tracers of vertical transport of air masses. Fukushima data were compared with the data obtained during the Chernobyl accident and in the post Chernobyl period. The activity concentrations of (131)I and (137)Cs were found to be by 4 orders of magnitude lower as compared to the Chernobyl accident. The activity ratio of (134)Cs/(137)Cs was around 1 with small variations only. The activity ratio of (238)Pu/(239,240)Pu in the aerosol sample was 1.2, indicating a presence of the spent fuel of different origin than that of the Chernobyl accident.
SOURCE: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22206700
And what a little bird told no one in particular...
Plutonium bioaccumulation in seabirds
Dagmara I. Strumińska-Parulska, Bogdan Skwarzec, Jacek Fabisiak
University of Gdańsk, Faculty of Chemistry, Analytics and Environmental Radiochemistry Chair, Sobieskiego 18, 80-952 Gdańsk, Poland
Received 7 April 2011. Revised 5 July 2011. Accepted 16 July 2011. Available online 23 August 2011.
The aim of the paper was plutonium (238Pu and 239+240Pu) determination in seabirds, permanently or temporarily living in northern Poland at the Baltic Sea coast. Together 11 marine birds species were examined: 3 species permanently residing in the southern Baltic, 4 species of wintering birds and 3 species of migrating birds. The obtained results indicated plutonium is non-uniformly distributed in organs and tissues of analyzed seabirds. The highest plutonium content was found in the digestion organs and feathers, the smallest in skin and muscles. The plutonium concentration was lower in analyzed species which feed on fish and much higher in herbivorous species. The main source of plutonium in analyzed marine birds was global atmospheric fallout.
Highlights
► We determined 239+240Pu in seabirds living in northern Poland at the Baltic Sea. ► We noticed plutonium was non-uniformly distributed in organs and tissues of seabirds. ► We found the highest plutonium content in the digestion organs and feathers. ► We found Pu content was lower in birds feeding on fish and higher in herbivorous.
SOURCE: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X11001676
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)[div class=“excerpt”]The cause of the wasting event is still unknown. Researchers from universities including Cornell, University of Rhode Island, Brown, and Roger Williams continue to work to determine whether the root cause of the disease can be attributed to a pathogen, and many groups are looking for patterns in the geographic extent and spread of wasting syndrome, which might suggest certain environmental factors as possible causes. There has been substantial speculation in the media that the disease could be a result of increased radiation from the nuclear power plant disaster in Fukushima, Japan. We have no evidence to suggest that radiation is a likely culprit.
http://www.eeb.ucsc.edu/pacificrockyintertidal/data-products/sea-star-wasting/updates.html
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Just keeps on giving.
Also, you know there's a difference between the NW Pacific and the Pacific NW, right?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Hilarious and sad at the same time.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Starfish, also called sea stars since they are not fish, are dying off in what some scientists describe as the worst case they have ever seen. And they don't know why, exactly.
The Pacific ocean, and indeed, the whole N. hemisphere has, since 3/11/11, been on the receiving end, via airborne deposition, the nuclear materials escaping from the Fukushima power plant's explosions, and over 1000 days of radiated water flowing into the Pacific.
For years the US Department of Energy has been sampling the organisms on Alaskan Islands to determine the effects of weapon testing. That testing found radioactive materials from Fukushima explosions in it's last test cycle in April of 2001, just a month after Fukushima blew.
In that testing, besides Cesium and Uranium, was found appreciable amounts of Plutonium in mussel flesh.
Sea stars eat mussels. If a mussel has plutonium in its flesh and the sea star eats it, it eats plutonium.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)[div class=“excerpt”]The cause of the wasting event is still unknown. Researchers from universities including Cornell, University of Rhode Island, Brown, and Roger Williams continue to work to determine whether the root cause of the disease can be attributed to a pathogen, and many groups are looking for patterns in the geographic extent and spread of wasting syndrome, which might suggest certain environmental factors as possible causes. There has been substantial speculation in the media that the disease could be a result of increased radiation from the nuclear power plant disaster in Fukushima, Japan. We have no evidence to suggest that radiation is a likely culprit.
http://www.eeb.ucsc.edu/pacificrockyintertidal/data-products/sea-star-wasting/updates.html
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Make sure to explain that part.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)using String Theory.
The drive itself uses Black Matter (but containment could be a real problem)
Time travel is not theoretically impossible, according to Michio Kaku in Physics of the Future, I think we need to call Professor Kaku and tell him that the Star Fish, one of the oldest creatures on the evolutionary tree, got a stash of this.
Some of these write themselves. I wonder if Robert will be annoyed if I use these critters for the FTL drive? If they can travel across time, I wonder if they can fully fold space time.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)I guess it's better than the heated water and Nazi metadata at least.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)with the rest of the fantasy and make-believe.
Sid
longship
(40,416 posts)
