Shock as sardines vanish off California - the entire Pacific coast - NOAA: We don’t know why

[bananas]

http://enenews.com/theyre-all-gone-shock-as-sardines-vanish-off-california-fishermen-didnt-find-a-single-one-all-summer-scientist-this-is-about-the-entire-pacific-coast-noaa-the-young

“They’re All Gone”: Shock as sardines vanish off California — Fishermen didn’t find a single one all summer — Scientist: This is about the entire Pacific coast… Canada, Mexico, U.S. — NOAA: We don’t know why; The young aren’t surviving

Published: January 14th, 2014 at 8:16 pm ET

• Long Beach Press Telegram, Jan. 13, 2014: Sardine vanish off the coast; squid and anchovy fill the void for fishermen — (Larry Derr) has pulled up (Pacific sardines) by the ton since the 1980s ... it was a shock when he couldn’t find one of the shiny silver-blue coastal fish all summer ... anchovies have proven a poor replacement since sardines became scarce. Fortunately, a boom in market squid has propelled Derr and other coastal pelagic fishers. ... Some have attributed recent rashes of sea lion pup and pelican deaths to the sardine population decline, which began a few years ago and was officially recognized in December ... “Everybody’s calling me every day for sardines,” Derr said. “They’re all gone. Even Monterey Bay Aquarium is still waiting for some to restock one of their exhibits.” ...
  
  
• Kerry Griffin, NOAA: “Is it El Nino? Pacific Decadal Oscillation? El Nina? Long-term climate change? More marine mammals eating sardines? Did they all go to Mexico or farther offshore? We don’t know.”
  
  
• Russ Vetter, NOAA: “They haven’t had a good recruitment ... You have to have adults that produce the eggs and then environmental conditions that would allow them to grow and then to not have them eaten by pelicans and terns, etc. It’s always complicated about why a fish egg doesn’t make it through the problems but we do know that, when the ocean is on the cooler side, conditions aren’t right.”
  
  
• Geoff Shester, scientist with Oceana: “This is about the entire Pacific coast including the U.S. and Mexico, not just British Columbia ... If fishermen have stopped fishing because they’ve hit their quota, that’s one thing. But they’re stopping because they can’t find any fish. That means fishery management is failing. ... We’re in an emergency situation right now. Any fishing is overfishing when the stock is in this condition.”
  

See also: L.A. Times: Alarming West Coast sardine crash likely radiating through ecosystem -- Experts warn marine mammals and seabirds are starving, may suffer for years to come -- Boats return without a single fish -- Monterey Bay: Hard to resist idea that humpback whales are trying to tell us something


Related Posts

• Sardine population plummets along U.S. West Coast — AP: Collapse of species feared — “Canadian Pacific fishermen catch no sardines in 2013? November 4, 2013
  
  
• ‘Troubling Mystery’: Complete collapse of sardine population on West Coast of Canada around Vancouver — Official: It’s ‘unexpected’ — Expert: Humpback whales rarely seen, they’re telling us something changed… nobody knows what’s going on October 15, 2013
  
  
• Study: High concentrations of Fukushima radioactive material will reach west coast of North America — “Entire coast” to be affected from Alaska to Mexico — “Can negatively affect human life for decades… should raise concern” (MODEL) September 23, 2013
  
  
• L.A. Times: Alarming West Coast sardine crash likely radiating through ecosystem — Experts warn marine mammals and seabirds are starving, may suffer for years to come — Boats return without a single fish — Monterey Bay: Hard to resist idea that humpback whales are trying to tell us something January 5, 2014
  
  
• Experts: “Really an off year” — Pelicans starving in Pacific Northwest since 2011, killing baby birds for food — Breeding success “really poor” since 2011 — “I believe pelicans are responding to large scale changes” — “Sardine crash” persists in Pacific since decline in 2011 December 22, 2013
  

[phantom power]

1. on to the next feed-stock for the Soylent factories

[zeemike]

2. But it has nothing to do with Fukishema...

So don't even think it.

[yorokmok]

7. Agreed

Including Fukishema in this is truly a....red herring....(sorry, couldn't help myself)

[underpants]

8. Maybe there we just a lot of pizzas ordered

It is my experience that sardines, on land, tend to migrate towards pizzas.

[OnyxCollie]

10. Anchovies. ANCHOVIES!

No sardines on pizza, ever!

[underpants]

19. Oh

Yeah then there's that

My bad

[OnyxCollie]

21. I eat a tin of anchovies and a tin of smoked oysters for breakfast every day.

My coworkers will always ask, "Did you eat your sardines?"

ANCHOVIES, damnit! ANCHOVIES.

[loudsue]

49. You know you don't do that.

How can you eat a tin of anchovies for breakfast???? I'll bet your taste buds really hate you.

[jeff47]

13. Fisheries off Japan aren't having similar problems.

If it was Fukushima, being thousands of miles closer would cause a much larger problem.

Also, lower in the thread is an article talking about the same thing happened in the '60s.

[questionseverything]

24. no problems off japans coast?

A fish contaminated with extremely high levels of radiation was found in waters near the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, a government-affiliated research institute said.

The Fisheries Research Agency said Jan. 10 the black sea bream had 12,400 becquerels per kilogram of radioactive cesium, 124 times the safety standards for foodstuffs.

The fish was caught at the mouth of the Niidagawa river in Iwaki, Fukushima Prefecture, on Nov. 17. The site is 37 kilometers south of the stricken power plant.

https://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201401110029

[jeff47]

26. One fish is not an entire fishery.

The story in an OP: The entire fishery disappeared.

Poster above: It was caused by Fukushima!

My post: Japanese fisheries have not disappeared. They're closer to Fukushima, so if it were the cause, Japanese fisheries should have disappeared first.

You: They found a bad fish!!!!!!!!!!



Again, if Fukushima is the reason for this fishery to have completely disappeared, then fisheries closer to Fukushima should have completely disappeared first.

[questionseverything]

29. more from the article

Two other fish also exceeded the safety standards of 100 becquerels per kilogram, at 426 becquerels and 197 becquerels, respectively.

The readings of the remaining 34 fish were within the safety limits, according to the Fisheries Research Agency.

/////////////////////

it is interesting that only 3 out of the 37 were infected beyond standards

////////////////////

my personal theory is,,,the pacific has been over fished,polluted,devastated by climate change and now radiation is excelorating any existing problems wether it is disease (starfish) or whatever

compare that to your theory that contaminated radioactive waste has no effect and i think my theory is closer to the truth

[jeff47]

32. You should try actually reading posts

compare that to your theory that contaminated radioactive waste has no effect and i think my theory is closer to the truth

Wow, what a moronic misreading. Seriously, I think you had to work very hard to come up with such a terribly wrong version of what those posts say.

Nowhere do I say that radioactive waste has no effect. What they do say that such waste has to have more of an effect where the concentration is higher, which is closer to the damaged plant.

That isn't some pro-industry position. It's basic logic - if something is toxic, it is more toxic in higher concentration.

So for radioactive waste to collapse this fishery, it would also have to collapse fisheries where the concentration is higher, right? Which means it would have to collapse fisheries closer to Fukushima. And (at least for now) we are not getting any reports of fishery collapse off Japan.

[another_liberal]

30. Is this sarcasm?

If not, why are you so certain there is no connection?

It has been about two years now since Fukushima's radioactive pollution was first detected in Tuna caught off the West Coast, right? Isn't that also long enough for it to impact sardine reproduction?

[jeff47]

35. That post was not mine, but it still wasn't Fukushima

Basic logic: If waste from Fukushima caused this fishery to collapse, it should also cause fisheries to collapse where the concentration of waste is higher. Also known as "off the coast of Japan".

We are not getting reports of Japanese fisheries collapsing. At least, not at the moment.

On the other hand, this exact fishery collapsed in the 1960s due to pollution, over-fishing and warmer water. There's been over-fishing, there's still pollution, and the water's getting warmer.

[another_liberal]

36. Your logic does seem convincing . . .

Unless, of course, there is something about sardines' reproductive cycle which makes them especially susceptible to the effects of radiation. Not being an expert in such things, I don't know the answer.

[jeff47]

38. Japan has sardines fisheries too. (nt)

[questionseverything]

45. in 2012

http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2012/06/06/tons-of-dead-sardines-washed-up-at-the-fishing-port-of-ohara-japan/

Something terribly fishy is going on at the fishing port of Ohara (pronounced Oh-hara) in Isumi City of Chiba Prefecture, and it has nothing to do with espionage or political corruption. There are tons and tons of dead sardines washing up on the shore, and not only is the sight disturbing, but the huge amount of dead fish is literally smelling up the entire surrounding area.

According to the news, the dead fish started washing up around noon of June 3rd, and as of early afternoon on June 4th, the situation still remained pretty much out of control. The amount of dead sardines that has washed up is thought to total several dozen metrics tons, so you can imagine how bad the smell of rotting fish must be.in 2012

[jeff47]

46. Yes, but the fishery is still there.

Again, for Fukushima's radiation to destroy the fishery off North America, it would also have to destroy the fishery off Japan....and Alaska.

[zeemike]

47. Yes it is sarcasm

And I am not certain one way ot the other, but I know it will be denied if anyone suggest it is.

[gtar100]

3. Is everyone afraid to mention the word "pollution"?

From mystery to bad fishery management (read: 'gubment regulation' on that last one) but nobody wants to say pollution or even over fishing. I guess it's hard to comprehend for some that humanity could have such an impact on the oceans.

[freshwest]

15. You nailed it. Must never mention business. Blinders on! n/t

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. The Domino Effect of Overfishing on Ocean Habitat: Many Species at Risk

This article points out the obvious:

The world's oceans are in trouble as overfishing continues to wreak havoc on the oceanic environment. Now, researchers have found that a domino effect occurs when too many fish are harvested from one habitat. The findings mean that if overfishing persists, it's not just one species that could be in trouble.

http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/12038/20140108/domino-effect-overfishing-ocean-habitat-many-species-risk.htm

AND

For example, in the Northern Benguela ecosystem off Namibia, stocks of sardine and anchovy collapsed in the 1970s from overfishing and were replaced by bearded goby and jellyfish. But the bearded goby and jellyfish are far less energy-rich than a sardine or anchovy, which meant that their populations were not an adequate food source for other sea animals in the region such as penguins, gannets and hake, which had fed on the sardines and anchovies. African penguins and Cape gannets have declined by 77 percent and 94 percent respectively. Cape hake and deep-water hake production plummeted from 725,000 metric tons in 1972, to 110,000 metric tons in 1990. And the population of Cape fur seals has fluctuated dramatically.

“When you put all these examples together, you realize there really is something important going on in the world’s ecosystems,” Travis said. “It’s easy to write off one case study. But, when you string them all together as this paper does, I think you come away with a compelling case that tipping points are real, we’ve crossed them in many ecosystems, and we’ll cross more of them unless we can get this problem under control.”

http://news.fsu.edu/More-FSU-News/Study-highlights-snowball-effect-of-overfishing

The frustrating thing is , all of this was known, was published and talked about, in the 1970's...that is part of what Earth Day was all about.

[DeSwiss]

5. K&R

Sardine population plummets along U.S. West Coast — AP - Collapse of species feared — ''Canadian Pacific fishermen catch no sardines in 2013''
Published: November 4th, 2013 at 12:15 am ET
By ENENews link

[niyad]

6. k and r --bookmarking for later reading.

[grantcart]

9. This article suggests that the phenomena is not new nor unexpected

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24493-sardine-disappearance-was-foreseen-but-ignored.html#.Utafrc-A3IU

Pacific sardine populations fluctuate with water temperature. Colder water means fewer fish. Temperatures last fell in the 1940s, but heavy fishing continued, devastating the stock and ending fishing until sardines returned when waters warmed in the 1980s.

"We think this is set to happen again," says Zwolinski, who tracked the population over the past century. He found that sardines have reproduced less since waters cooled in the 1990s. Almost all eggs now come from fish born a decade ago, which are nearly gone.

What's more, acoustic results show that the fish have become smaller over the past decade, partly because of chillier water. This is a problem: the fattest sardines migrate farthest north, so the shrinking fish could help explain Canada's shortage. Smaller fish also reproduce less.

...

What's more, acoustic results show that the fish have become smaller over the past decade, partly because of chillier water. This is a problem: the fattest sardines migrate farthest north, so the shrinking fish could help explain Canada's shortage. Smaller fish also reproduce less.

Flaky fish

Despite all this, Canada has continued to up their quotas.

These natural boom and bust cycles make all sardine fisheries fundamentally unsustainable, says Alec MacCall of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in La Jolla, California. "There can be periods of decades when no fishing should be allowed since reproduction cannot even replace the parental stock

[freshwest]

16. You win the thread. Greed and overfishing, followed by protestations of 'IDK why! Help!' n/t

Last edited Wed Jan 15, 2014, 09:45 PM - Edit history (1)

[RobertEarl]

34. Big Problem with that

Quote:
"Pacific sardine populations fluctuate with water temperature. Colder water means fewer fish. Temperatures last fell in the 1940s, but heavy fishing continued, devastating the stock and ending fishing until sardines returned when waters warmed in the 1980s."

Problem is the NW Pacific is warm. Anomalously warm. Meaning that over about the last 30 years, it is at a warm peak. Satellites tell us this. It is real science. Real time data. So that theory you proposed, that the water is cold and stocks are therefore depleted, is crushed.

Here is a page showing the satellite map of sea surface temperatures anomalies.

http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sfc_daily.php?plot=ssa&inv=0&t=cur

You will note that big orange ball of warm water off the west coast of the US and Canada, eh?

For further edification, if you so desire, check out this wonderfully graphic science concerning the radioactive plume in the Pacific. If you don't want to be startled, do not click.

*******************
pdf of Pacific Transport of Cesium

https://www.pices.int/publications/presentations/PICES-2013/2013-MEQ/MEQ-1700-Smith.pdf

[grantcart]

42. There is absolutely no scientific problem with the explanation,

NOAA, which knows a bit about oceans says that sardines do go through natural boom and bust cycles.

These natural boom and bust cycles make all sardine fisheries fundamentally unsustainable, says Alec MacCall of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in La Jolla, California. "There can be periods of decades when no fishing should be allowed since reproduction cannot even replace the parental stock."

If you want to be frightened about what is happening in the Oceans then go here where actual science is documenting a much greater threat, but if you don't have the balls for real science do not click:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

[RobertEarl]

43. You bring up a good point

The acidification of the oceans is a big concern.

Acidification has to do with pH, which is short for "Potential of Hydrogen Ions"

The more Hydrogen ions there are, the more acidic the water becomes.

So when we look at the idea behind radiation, we come to understand that the real problem with man-made radiation is that it is Ionizing.

Simply, that means ionizing radiation increases the potential for Hydrogen Ions. Something else to consider, thanks for bringing that up, grantcart. Granted that may not be what you intended, but there it is.

But lets not forget the incongruity of your statements about cold vs. warm waters, since at this time the Pacific is very warm? What's up with that?

And.... in light of the fact that fisheries do indeed need to be 'rested', do you not find it curious that the science is denied by the profiteers? That NOAA's advice is often trashed by those who can't see what it is they are doing to the oceans? Much the same as the Fukushima deniers are wont to do, eh?

[clayton72]

11. This article is pegging my BS meter

There has been a lot of noise about Fukushima being responsible for some things that have been seen in the Pacific off the west coast of the US, but many scientists have been calling BS on that. I searched for the article mentioned on AP, not found. The link goes to a page not found on the news site. Misinformation is worse than no information and should be refuted at every opportunity.

[bananas]

18. This AP article?

Old links expire, if you google the phrases you can usually find another copy of the article.

http://www.newsdaily.com/article/7cc53ded5306c25d8f5ca2d960ace58f/groups-want-to-halt-west-coast-sardine-fishing

Groups want to halt West Coast sardine fishing

Tuesday Oct 29, 2013 | Jeff Barnard for The Associated Press

Conservation groups fear sardines declining on West Coast, call for halt to fishing species

GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) — Concerned sardine numbers may be starting to collapse, conservation groups are calling on federal fishery managers to halt West Coast commercial sardine fishing to give the species a better chance to rebound.

"If they continue fishing them hard, they will go down a lot faster, and it will take them longer to recover," said Ben Enticknap of the conservation group Oceana, which wants a suspension through the first half of 2014.

<snip>

[MyNameGoesHere]

12. I think this is a lie

the Pacific has been getting a boost of happy sun rays now for over a year now. It's the anti nuke crowd causing fear.

See, radioactive man says "happy sun ray make all the fishes grow"

[packman]

14. Radiation, Japan, fish decline

GODZILLA- it all fits in. Watch out New York.

[Berlin Expat]

22. The sardines

are somewhere unseen, merging into a creature like Hedorah.

BOOM!

[joanbarnes]

17. Unbelievable, only one thread even mentions Fukishima! WORLDWIDE blackout of obvious cause.

[grantcart]

20. beause it has happened before and the reason is well known.

see post #9

[questionseverything]

27. with nuclear power

we start a dangerous reaction we can only stop under ideal conditions....once those conditions are gone,like at fukishima i do not think the powers that be know what to do.....so it seems like they want to pretend it is not happening

i fully expect one of the denialist to announce ,radiation is actually good for us!!!

[paleotn]

31. No one is saying radiation is good.....

...only that we should use some commons sense and a little science and recognize that the Fukashima disaster has limited affects on the west coast of the US. Seriously, do you know how much background radiation you receive from simply eating bananas (potassium 40), brazil nuts (radium 226 and potassium 40) or lima beans (potassium 40)? Ever fly on a commercial jet for any significant length of time? Simply living in the Rocky or Appalachian mountain states exposes you to significant background radiation, far greater than we are receiving here from Fukashima, simply from the geology. And that's not even taking into account the amount of cosmic radiation raining down on us from space.

Fukashima is a horrible disaster for Japan and an indictment of the fundamental dangers inherent with nuclear power, but that's no excuse for unfounded hysterics on the US west coast.

[RobertEarl]

44. A banana expert?

Quote from paleotn:
"Seriously, do you know how much background radiation you receive from simply eating bananas (potassium 40), brazil nuts (radium 226 and potassium 40) or lima beans (potassium 40)?"

No, I don't know how much k40 (potassium 40) is in a banana. Obviously you do. Why not share that with us?

I have heard that the amount of k40 in a banana is about 0.01 percent, which is not a lot, eh? So, I eagerly await your data and science that backs up your fearmongering as concerns bananas.

[paleotn]

48. Seems reading comprehension....

...isn't one of your strong suites. The amount of background radiation received by simply eating, drinking, breathing and just walking around is relatively small, but so is the radiation received in the US from Fukushima via air, seawater, fish etc., simply because of the size of the accident and its distance from the US. THAT'S my point that you apparently don't get!

You're surrounded by ionizing radiation by simply living. Even from the the number of BEDs (banana equivalent doses) we're exposed to annually. Yes, a BED is a bit of a joke, but all of the amounts of ionizing radiation we're exposed to per year adds up. The average amount of radiation found in bananas is around 3,520 pCi / kg, mostly in the form of beta particles produced by the decay of K-40. That's a very, very tiny amount per banana, but does tend to send the worriers and the unbalanced into hysterics, thus its use by those of us who like to point and laugh at the hysterical.

http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm

Though also tiny, our own bodies contain ionizing radiation sources withing our organic molecules, K-40 being one of them. C-14, as a tiny % of the carbon in every one of your cell's DNA, being another. That's right, a tiny portion of our own carbon atoms are magically decaying into nitrogen 14, and within our own DNA for god's sake! Scared yet?

The vast majority of the natural annual radiation dose received by every single American is from geologic sources (radon) and medical procedures, around 5.5 mSv per year. As a reference, just those two sources are vastly higher than anything we in the continental US will receive from Fukushima in a year. How am I so certain? Because we've been down this road once before. Chernobyl. Terrible for the Ukraine and parts of central Europe, but had no measurable affect on North America.

Fukushima will change life for the worse in Japan for many years to come. That underscores the fact that nuclear power should be curtailed since when things do go wrong, they go horribly wrong. However, going bonkers in the western US about radiation problems that simply don't exist doesn't help matters. It tends to paint all of us anti-nukes as nuts.

[RobertEarl]

52. So, you'll quit with the BED bullshit?

You make all these claims about what we face without any science that backs you up. You make wild claims that Fukushima is this or that or will or won't be a problem without any data or science that backs you up.

But you get all flustered when I call you on your ridiculous BED, which shows you are just talking stuff and acting, yes, acting, like a know-it-all.

If you were an anti-nuke you'd be digging for the real science and not blabbering the BED bullshit. The fucking nuts are those who love their nukes and downplay the consequences which is what the fucking nukers have been doing all along. And now you, with your BED.

You state: "...natural annual radiation dose received by every single American is from geologic sources (radon) and medical procedures, around 5.5 mSv per year. "

See that word 'natural'? And can you read this..."unnatural radiation from Fukushima"? Because what we have now is a dose of this unnatural radiation, in unknown amounts, circling the globe. K-40 is something we have adapted to and our bodies can clean out. This man-made unnatural stuff is not something our bodies are adapted to.

You act so wise, but have you read this science about what is coming toward us on the west coast?

pdf of Pacific Transport of Cesium

https://www.pices.int/publications/presentations/PICES-2013/2013-MEQ/MEQ-1700-Smith.pdf

And while your at it, tell us where the cores are at Fukushima, you're so damn smart.

You anti-nuke? Don't make me puke.

[jeff47]

33. If Fukishima is the cause, why have fisheries off Japan not collapsed?

They should be exposed to much more waste from the plant than fisheries off North America.

Alternatively, this could be a repeat of what we saw with this exact same fishery in the 1960s - a combination of pollution, over-fishing and warmer water caused the fishery to collapse.

[RobertEarl]

37. They quit fishing off the coast of Japan

And like Chernobyl, once the hunting was forbidden, the wildlife came back.

What I'd like to see is some real data about the sea life off the coast of Japan. Have you any such data, or are you just imagining that the sea life there is doing fine?

Above, poster grantcart, decides it is cold water that hurts the fishery and here you are saying warm water hurts. You can't both be right. So, can you back up your bold claim?

[jeff47]

39. Hey Robert! Looks like your time-traveling radiation took out another fishery

Amazing that Fukishima took out this very same fishery in the 1960s, isn't it?

They quit fishing off the coast of Japan

Nope. They quit fishing off the coast right next to Fukushima. They haven't stopped fishing elsewhere.

What I'd like to see is some real data about the sea life off the coast of Japan. Have you any such data, or are you just imagining that the sea life there is doing fine?

Google still works if you want to find out.

There's also the fact that Japan gets an extremely large portion of its food from fishing, yet their media isn't screaming "there's no food!!!"

There's also the fact that people such as yourself are desperately seeking to connect anything they can find to Fukushima, and would be screaming about any data showing fishery collapse off Japan.

Finally, there's the matter of the Alaskan fisheries. They should have a higher radiation level than ones off the West coast, and thus suffer more harm. They aren't.

[RobertEarl]

41. As usual you have no data

Just wishful wanderings.

Weirdly, we have many here who wish Fukushima never happened and are now trying their best to deny the science and claim that nothing has changed.

I find Fukushima to be a situation that requires real science and data that describes the changes we are seeing happen. It is what followers of science do. Non-followers just talk and talk and never supply data.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

23. Please stop posting crap from ENE as if it's a legitimate source of information. I am sick

and tired of seeing these Fuku threads and when I click through it's bullshit from ENE. I don't like having my limited time being wasted by this non-source of Fuku information.

[paleotn]

25. Nothing to do with Fukashima....

...and probably everything to do with normal climate variations or climatic variations forced by anthropomorphic climate change and its effect on sea temps, and most importantly human over fishing. Sardine populations are inherently volatile, but that is greatly aggravated by humans rampaging though the fish stocks when populations are relatively high.

See the interesting graph at the end of the linked story.

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-sardine-crash-20140106,3994833,1114214,full.story#axzz2qUDUmBfI

After commercial exploitation crushed sardine populations by the early 50's, it took around 40 years for them to come back, but not nearly to their huge numbers in the early 20th century. Scary thing is sardines, like anchovies and other species are the base of the western Pacific food chain. Humans have wiped out the western Pacific sardine fishery and we'll have to wait decades for them to come back, if ever. So what do we do now? Lets rape squid and anchovy stocks! Smart!

[Arugula Latte]

28. Wasn't there an enormous sardine cluster in Monterey Bay in the fall?

I think it was sardines ... or maybe another type of fish ... anyone remember? Anyway ... weirdness all around. I really fear for life on this planet.

[RobertEarl]

40. It is of note that Cs was high the last time the stock crashed

Back in the 60's, after a bunch of nuclear weapons tests in and over the Pacific, it has been claimed by some on this thread that sardine pop crashed. That makes sense.

For real data, see this link which is a study of Cesium (Cs) levels in the Pacific. Nuke lovers and Fukushima deniers may not want to click the link. For those so disinclined, you can take my word for it that since the 60's Cs levels have been on a downward slope and the prediction is now that Cs levels are on the increase. And will be increasing for a number of years due to Fukushima releases.

pdf of Pacific Transport of Cesium

https://www.pices.int/publications/presentations/PICES-2013/2013-MEQ/MEQ-1700-Smith.pdf

[paleotn]

50. Guess you missed these parts......

...and I quote from your own source.

Slide 26.... in context, by "us" I assume the authors are referring to Canada. Thus, by extension, the US.

Caveat:
These levels are still well below maximum permissible concentrations in drinking water for 137 Cs of 10,000 Bq/m3: Not an environmental or human health radiological threat!

and slide 28

Fact is: radioactivity frightens people, almost always
disproportionately to the actual threat: gouvernment must
recognise this and provide sound, science based knowledge
(and wisdom?) on human and environmental risks.

Interesting slide presentation though. Thanks for sharing.

[RobertEarl]

53. No. Didn't miss it

What you don't want to note is that Cs from Fukushima was identified off the coast last year.

So, given the immensity of the ocean, and the amount of Cs already found, it means massive quantities of Cs were released from Fukushima.

The models in the study seem to be based on the amount of Cs released pre-modelling, and do not take into account the fact that the releases are continuing 24/7. That means that there is about a 1000 day increase in the contamination.

And there is no study of strontium 90, which as far longer ionizing radionuclide than is the Cs137.

The conclusion from the study is that more testing must take place. Because they are not really sure what the hell is going to happen.

Anyone claiming to know what will happen is just nuts, eh?

[MindMover]

51. Facts can sometimes help .... but it depends on posters intent ...

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4397

[RobertEarl]

54. Intent, indeed

Is it some poster's intent to whitewash this? To make it seem that there is no problem?

Or is their intent to make sure that people are aware of what may be happening? That following the science and data, and knowing what radionuclides can do, some poster's intent is to educate and inform a lied to public?

What is your intent?

[MindMover]

56. To make informed factual posts ... so to avoid

..... "Absurdly exaggerated and sensationalized reports that do not help anyone; rather they increase confusion, and decrease our ability to respond to such events appropriately."

and to repudiate inferential posts/articles that can be scientifically explained in many more obviously rational/logical ways ...


"This is the central thesis of science reporters who have been desperately trying to respond to scientifically illiterate fearmongerers printing headlines like "Your Days of Eating Pacific Ocean Fish Are Over" and "28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima". Our planet's entropy has, long ago, already rid itself of any credible threat from the Fukushima radiation, outside of the immediate evacuation zone. Fishing has long been suspended from Daiichi's vicinity, so there is no way that eating a legally caught fish can give you any significant Fukushima radiation."

[RobertEarl]

57. What is absurd

The notion that anyone knows what will happen because of Fukushima.

Used to be the norm that folks said: "Japan is too smart to let something like Chernobyl happen." = Absurd. Yeah, the absurdity lies with the nukers and their ilk who are making claims that are anti-science, that "All is well and the Pacific is fine".

All one has to do is see the models coming out that tell the science that the pollution has almost already showed up on the west coast. Are you in denial of that?

You don't seem to be well versed in any of the nuclear science. All you can do is attack those who are trying to tell you what could happen? Do you know there are another 400+ Fukushima type operations on the face of the planet?

What, again, is your intent? Have you figured that out yet, or is your mind not moved along enough yet to tackle such a question?

[MindMover]

59. I will leave the absurdities to the absurd ... as for denial ...

POLLUTION is part of what we live in everyday, everywhere on this planet ... and no, absolutely no, I am not in denial of that fact ...

You are correct in your assumption that I am not a nuclear scientist, nor am I well versed in nuclear science ....

Attack you or your compatriots, I have never nor will I ever attack you ... for informing me of your future world view ... I consult higher authorities than you for my world view...and yes, I am aware that there are many more than 400 nuclear power plants in existence ... here is a more complete list ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors

Factually, I will bombard you with truths, and you can do with them what you want ...

"What, again, is your intent? Have you figured that out yet, or is your mind not moved along enough yet to tackle such a
question?" .... clever play on words ...

Your defensive platitudes do suggest an aggressively divisive intent, therefore this shall be my last submission to you on this post, and may your world view not come true .... adios ...

[RobertEarl]

60. My defensive platitudes

Yeah. In defense of the innocents who stand to be damaged by the nuclear pollution which this way comes. I have for years been quite aware of the changes the earth is going thru... climate change, air pollution, water pollution. And the people are all like "Huh? You are chicken little." Well, here we are, a messed up world with declining wildlife, climate change and now nuclear plants blowing up. Yeah, I'm defensive. You would be too if you understood and had seen what I've seen.

As for my world view.... there is not one deep ecologist who doesn't grok it.

You may be a lost case, but there are others out there; youngsters who have a long life ahead of them who need to be aware of the Truths of this world and the changes coming down. To them I speak and to others just words to the wise. Some are too set in their ways to be reached. Oh well.

[bananas]

58. Skeptoid doesn't understand entropy

Skeptoid thinks entropy means the contaminants are evenly distributed throughout the ocean.
That's not true at all.

I recently posted an article with an easy-to-understand explanation of entropy.
It's on a different subject, but the principle is the same:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101682319

MAXIMUM ENTROPY

This fifth curve corresponds to a state of maximum entropy in the distribution of energy. Entropy is not merely a synonym for disorder. Rather, entropy is a measure of the number of different ways a system can exist. If, for example, $100 was to be divided among ten people, total equality would dictate that each person received $10. In Figure 3, this is represented by the solid diagonal line. Maximum inequality would be equivalent to giving all $100 to one person. This would be represented by a curve that hugged the horizontal axis and then proceeded straight up the rightmost vertical axis.

Statistically, both of these scenarios are rather unlikely since they correspond to unique situations. The bulk of possible divisions of $100 would look more like this example: person 1 gets $27, person 2 gets $15, and so forth down to person 10, who receives only $3. The black curve in Figure 3 represents this middle case, where, in the competition for scarce energy resources, neither total equality nor total inequality reigns.

[RobertEarl]

62. Here's the problem, mm

Quote:
"Our planet's entropy has, long ago, already rid itself of any credible threat from the Fukushima radiation, outside of the immediate evacuation zone."

There you go, coming to a conclusion "... already rid ... of threat..."

So, you don't think further examination of the situation is warranted? That all is well and all taken care of?

From where I sit it seems your intent is to whitewash Fukushima.

Not only that, but you are anti-science?

[kestrel91316]

55. These scientists aren't cognizant of the devastating oceanic ecosystem effects of

global warming and pollution/dead zones???

WTF?

[Enthusiast]

61. I'm sure it's nothing.