I hope the reader detected my sarcasm above. The public is dependant on the science community like never before. We rely on them to guide policy makers and inform the public about developments that can have huge impacts on a global scale and that are often out of the sphere of knowledge of non specialists.
can one cup of non radioactive milk raise breast cancer risk 50% but milk contaminated with nuclear fallout be harmless until you drink 58,000 cups of it? Warm...or cold...wet...or dry environments caused by climate change cause cancer and every conceivable ailment yet nuclear mega disasters are harmless. There is an obvious failure of science and media here.
Its not up to the layman to unravel the environmental impact of nuclear catastrophes, this is the job of specialists in the field. The best we can do is speculate and see if it is supported by the science literature. If there is no support from science, then the work of the layman is worthless. Even if he or she is correct.
The question here is whether or not the largest nuclear accident in history (at least by some accounts
Move Over Chernobyl, Fukushima is Now Officially the Worst Nuclear Power Disaster in History https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/04/27/...n-history/) involving some of the most toxic materials in existence, could possibly affect the ocean ecosystem and be responsible for some if not the large part of the mortality events we have seen since the disaster.
And the answer, repeatedly given, is that no, the fukushima catastrophe had no impact on ocean life, and was not responsible for the plankton snow events, the loss of sardine and anchovy, the failure of salmon, the starvation of seals, birds and whales, the seastar massacre, failure of tide pools and more.
This response from the science community boggles the mind. The appropriate scientific mindset is to remain open minded. One would EXPECT huge amounts of radioactive toxins to have some effect. The correct scientific attitude would say....ok, a large release of toxin...must have some toxic effect, even if we cant explain it at this point. Its like a miracle deserving utmost attention. Because now we have scientists presumptuously calling for the abandonment of evacuations near nuke catastrophes. The green light for nuclear war cant be far off. Super poison has now become harmless. Something is crazy in the science world!
The science community
MUST BE RESPONSIBLE!
For perspective, this comes up again and again; the science community has no problem stating that climate change is and will be the cause of so much disaster, even with scant scientific evidence. Yes, one could expect bad results from climate change, just as we expect bad results from nuclear fallout. The next step requires an open mind and suspension of presumptuous conclusions.
It is obvious; the scientific attitude is not the same for nuclear fallout and climate change. I say its an embarrassment. Parallel to the scientific method, is the scientific mindset. curiosity, skepticism, an open mind and humility. A reasonable starting point for scientific hypothesis is that poison in fact poisons things. This is denied by 99% of the papers I read concerning Fukushima. When field studies show mortality and morbidity not explained by the ICRP dose model, the findings are denied by the IAEA and other authorities. A child of 12 could see this is not scientific.
So yes, sarcastic I am, and frustrated with assembling a scientifically supported logic tree which could verify a reasonable hypothesis; Radioactive poison somehow poisoned the ocean ecosystem. Its supposed to be someone else's job. Without scientific support, might as well throw up your arms and say, fine...nuclear fallout super poison did nothing to the ocean or the milk. Its all psychological. Poison isnt poisonous, the evacuees are just mentally deranged