• Thank you for visiting the Cafe Rad Lab Forum
  • We present & discuss radiation health, science & news
  • To keep you informed about vital nuke information.
Hello There, Guest! Login Register


Sea Surface Microlayer
#21
The AMAZING,  FANTASTIC,  CESIUM 137,  so poisonous a mere 5 milligrams will kill you, yet so harmless you can blow up nuclear power plants and it never harms anything!   A modern miracle material
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#22
Code, I've had a bit of difficulty understanding just what the Ocean's sea surface micro-layer is.  What you were describing sounded like EZ water.  

What is the fourth phase of water?
April McCarthy
Prevent Disease.com
Mon, 02 Mar 2015 18:47 UTC
https://www.sott.net/article/293286-What...e-of-water


Quote:In his 2001 book, Cells, Gels and the Engines of Life, Dr. Pollack explains how the cell functions. Research suggests that much of the cell biology may be governed by a single unifying mechanism - the phase transition. Water is absolutely central to every function of the cell - whether it's muscle contraction, cells dividing, or nerves conducting, etc.

This extraordinary book challenges many of the concepts that have been accepted in contemporary cell biology. The underlying premise of this book is that a cell's cytoplasm is gel-like rather than an ordinary aqueous solution.

Other inherent differences between regular water and EZ water include its structure. Typical tap water is H2O but this fourth phase is not H2O; it's actually H3O2. It's also more viscous, more ordered, and more alkaline than regular water, and its optical properties are different. The refractive index of EZ water is about 10 percent higher than ordinary water. Its density is also about 10 percent higher, and it has a negative charge (negative electrical potential).

One of the greatest surprises is that the key ingredient to create EZ water is light, i.e. electromagnetic energy, whether in the form of visible light, ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths and infrared wavelengths, which we're surrounded by all the time. Infrared is the most powerful, particularly at wavelengths of approximately three micrometers, which is all around you. The EZ water can build on any hydrophilic or water-loving surface when infrared energy is available.

Tritium could interfere with the phase transition and electrical properties.  Regular water is neutral.  

EZ water layering on the surface would keep waters below 10% cooler than without it.

The cesium and strontium that pass thru that micro-layer would readily combine with the salts in the sunlit surface layer where most of the plankton and micro-organisms live.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#23
Nuclear fallout,  the worlds deadliest toxin is also the worlds safest.  Not only is it lethal in extremely small amounts, it never causes harm and may even improve the safety of milk.  Just compare these studies

New study associates intake of dairy milk with greater risk of breast cancer
Evidence suggests consistently drinking as little as one cup per day may increase rate of breast cancer up to 50%
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...101323.htm

Radioactive Milk Only A Danger After 58,000 Glasses
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shot...00-glasses

As a smart consumer and reader of science journals, I know which milk Im going to drink....the RADIOACTIVE MILK!

This is good news for people as far away as Oregon

Radioactive milk linked to the Japan nuclear crisis has been detected in samples from California and Washington State. But the amounts are so tiny that they pose no health risk, officials say.

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0331/...-minuscule

Nuclear fallout never causes cancer.  Look no further than climate change if you are concerned about causes of cancer.

Climate Change is Already Causing Asthma. Cancer Too. Suicides and everything.
https://newrepublic.com/article/117675/n...mer-planet

Wet and cold weather linked to increased cancer rates
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/327210

Sitting is deadly, Fallout makes you thrive

If you sit, you get heart disease
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/article...sease-risk

In the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, some animals are thriving
https://thehill.com/changing-america/sus...r-disaster

The health impact from the worlds biggest nuclear release into the ocean is encouraging. 
 the largest single release of human-made radioactive discharge to the marine environment resulted from an accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan. Approximately 80 percent of the fallout happened over the Pacific Ocean.  The research available so far on the risk to the marine environment is encouraging

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...141309.htm

In fact, the non risk from the worlds worst toxin is so high that people shouldnt leave exclusions zones due to health risks.   

New research suggests that few people, if any, should be asked to leave their homes after a big nuclear accident, which is what happened in March 2011 following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.

This is the main finding of a multi-university research study led by Philip Thomas, Professor of Risk Management at the University of Bristol,
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...085453.htm

The super safe super toxin is so benign it doesnt warrant any press after a super disaster.  And thats just super!

News coverage of Fukushima disaster minimized health risks to general population

all media characterizations of 'uncertain risk' were subsequently interpreted as 'evidence of low risk'. In two years of reporting, across all four media outlets, there were only a combined total of 17 articles reporting any noteworthy risk from the largest nuclear disaster in history.

Corporations and government agencies had disproportionate access to framing the event in the media, Pascale says. Even years after the disaster, government and corporate spokespersons constituted the majority of voices published. 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...111859.htm

OK, Im going to drink some radioactive milk right now!
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#24
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
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#25
the scientists who believe psychological stress is the only danger to the public from nuclear catastrophes, suffer from mental delusions. 

The extreme toxicity of nuclear fallout is proof. The multiple containment and protection efforts, failed storage solutions and lead lined coffins are proof. 

Its not acceptable that scientists suffering delusions can hold positions of influence.
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#26
It goes unseen because its invisible to the senses.  We move thru a sea of electro-magnetic energies.  We need special tools to measure frequencies beyond visible light.  Science doesn't yet have the full picture.  We are free to make our own observations and speculations.  

So here's a thin micro-layer of Ocean surface water that sunlight is making negatively charged and clumping into structured water.  Suddenly its hit by a barrage of Fuku fallout, beta and gamma emitting charged particles.  

"Typical tap water is H2O but this fourth phase is not H2O; it's actually H3O2."

Tritium might make 3H3O2 but the charge balancing would break the structure.  At any rate, the negatively charged micro-layer would cease to exist and with Tritium in the water, sunlight would not be able to reproduce the EZ micro-layer very quickly.  Infrared would penetrate deeper, warming the water.  Ultraviolet would also penetrate deeper reducing the living range for those struggling plankton.  The essential elements for life, Potassium, Calcium, and Iron now include radioactive mimics to fool living organisms into absorbing them.  The fallout mixes horizontally thru the sunlit surface layer, bio-accumulating in the feeding populations.  

Code, politicians often ignore scientist's warnings when exploiting their achievements.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#27
The life of the ocean comes almost entirely from the sun.  The ocean surface and phytoplankton are the solar cell engine of the entire ocean food web.  The surface microlayer is a unique habitat, with the greatest solar energy and complex chemistry.  Its an engine of biological production.  The phytoplankton live in the top few meters of water, mainly, and it is this top layer that should be a concern for nuke fallout.   

A further focus  of concern is the ocean area near the coastlines.  This is where the ocean life is concentrated. The very top surface volume of the coastal waters could be the nexus of fallout damage to ocean ecosystems.  Any mechanism that concentrates fallout in this region is concerning.   So the mid ocean, mid water column radiation doesnt seem to have much predictive value.  The coastline is influenced by runoff, rivers and many human stresses.  Its conceivable that the aerosol delivered fallout accumulated in coastal region top layers.  

This picture is an example of the density of phytoplankton measured by chlorophyll.   The red is the densest area, the mid ocean is a desert.  Up north, the glaciers are strewn with rather highly radioactive pockets of water, minerals and organisms. Cryoconite radiation is  at significantly higher levels than what is considered safe for human ingestion. These contaminants could enter the food chain as glaciers  melt into rivers, lakes and seas This demonstrates one example of an enrichment mechanism.  Rain and wind, irregular melting.  Some of this radioactive fresh water could conceivably melt out and, being less dense than salt water, create a more radioactive upper surface.  The microlayer enriches the radioactivity perhaps 10 times by various mechanisms.   There is no scientific data about the radioactivity of the N Pacific microlayer.

Much of the Fuku fallout was in the form of glass microspheres.  These act like time release capsules of high radioactive density.  A single microparticle would be enough to kill at least one and perhaps several organisms the size of butterfly larvae, (if the extrapolation is valid)   The glass microparticles would dissolve in the ocean in about a year.  In the lung, perhaps 30 years.  In rivers only a few months.  Is this situation enough to somehow poison the all important life engine in the top surface of the ocean, along the coasts?  The data I have found do not indicate any reduction of plankton.  There is a lack of scientific study.

But the lack of evidence may be misleading.  For example, its not easy to find graphs of ocean biomass or species mortality that show we are living on a planet with a mere 10 percent of previous large fish stocks. An important coastal forage fish is the Eulachon.  in the 1990s, the  runs of eulachon began to collapse. Where is the graph of this collapse?

A study of catch data published in 2006 in the journal Science  predicted that if fishing rates continue, all the world's fisheries will have collapsed by the year 2048.  This info is not readily seen in graphs showing the state of the fisheries.

The Fukushima disaster was a significant pulse of deadly radioactive fallout. But it is added on top of the bomb test radiation. The oceans and earth were already dosed.   The impact from Fukushima must be seen in the longer context of the entire nuclear era, and even in the context of early whaling enterprises.  The 90% reduction in whales has a major impact on plankton fertilization.  The ocean ecosystem is interconnected and man has totally exploited it.  It would require a smart and dedicated scientist to evaluate the existing data in this broad context to see what the impact of Fukushima has been.  We know the fallout was and is there, we know there have been major mortality events since and of course before the Fuku event.  What is lacking is the science that ties it all together as cause and effect. 

Lack of science is not proof of no causation.  I witnessed a large reduction in bird and insect life after Fukushima. Others noted severe effects in tide pools, from Hawaii to Costa Rica to North America and Canada. There are epidemiological studies showing drastic impact  on newborns.  
 
[Image: image002.jpg]
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#28
for the record, Pacific sardines were crashing before Fukushima.     Sardine populations vary widely in the long term history.  Fishing pressure likely drove a lot of the crash, with one study suggesting the biomass would be 4 times higher at this point without fishing.  The graph shows a change at 2011. Could the steeper trend at 2011 been influenced by the biggest nuclear catastrophe?

Ocean dynamics are very complicated.  Researchers have differing conclusions
[Image: sardine_exploitation_rates_2005-2017_3_1.jpg]
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#29
While fish populations oscillate widely,  for example an alternating population is seen with sardine and anchovy,  the current fish status appears troubled with many species in decline simultaneously.

in late 2014, the population of herring abruptly nosedived as the fish’s total  “biomass”, plunged from an estimated 60,600 tons in the winter of 2013-14 to less than 17,000 tons the next year. The population has remained below 19,000 tons since

part of the sardine collapse may be due to colder waters.
https://www.pnas.org/content/109/11/4175

The above article said that with colder waters, sardine are declining while mackerel are thriving.  But other sources say mackerel are declining.

Pacific Mackerel Stocks That Feed Farmed Salmon In Decline
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/201...in-decline

"63 percent decline in jack mackerel stocks since 2006. At the current rate of overfishing, the world's stock of jack mackerel, which is largely located off the coast of Chile, could collapse soon."

Indeed, as if a 90% reduction in large fish and whales isnt bad enough, 

"A new report from the World Wildlife Fund indicates a nearly 50% decline in marine life populations between 1970 and 2012.   ...commercially fished species have also fallen by half, and some even more. The tuna and mackerel populations have seen a nearly 75% decline and Bluefin tuna in the Pacific are on the brink of extinction. This is largely due to the global problem of overfishing"
https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/17/world/oce...index.html

What does this have to do with nuclear fallout?  Apparently not much. To see what impact large emissions of nuclear radiation have on the ocean, a tighter scientific focus is required.    I believe every action has a reaction.   Many scientists seem to think nuclear fallout is a cause without an effect. 

In all of my searches, I only found one paper that estimates a toll on ocean life from Fukushima.

 This paper estimates at least 220,000,000 kg of sea life will die. Thats probably an underestimate they say.


Other points;  will kill at least a million people,  Infectious, cardiovascular and other diseases are bigger contributors to death than cancer

http://www.npsag.org/upload/reports/00-0...0Paper.pdf
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#30
What would the world be like with 10 times as much large wildlife,  4 times as many birds,  10 times as many whales? 10 times as many swordfish and other large fish.   Pretty lively.   Our ancestors knew that lively earth.   

Coinciding with the advent of nuclear, there has been a severe crash of wildlife.  It is believed that habitat destruction and...well...killing and eating them all has produced our current world devoid of wild life.  But could the super toxins of the nuclear bombs,  fuel and waste have had something to do with it?   The logical answer is yes,  if you poison things with poison, they will be poisoned.  The estimate of the human life lost to nuclear is over 50 million from the bomb test and Rosalie Bertell calculates 1.3 billion over all.  Certainly an animal biomass of equivalent size would have been impacted also.  

Man, the species that thought he could eat, displace and poison the whole world with impunity....as if the world belonged to him or something.

A new study finds that the world’s seabird populations have plummeted by almost 70% in just 60 years.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/...e-crashing

the tern family has fallen by 85%, frigatebirds by 81%, petrels and shearwaters by 79%, and albatrosses by 69%.cormorant and shag populations have fallen by 73%.


The amount of fish in the oceans has halved since 1970, in a plunge to the "brink of collapse" caused by over-fishing and other threats, the WWF conservation group said on Wednesday.

Populations of some commercial fish stocks, such as a group including tuna, mackerel and bonito, had fallen by almost 75 percent, according to a study by the WWF and the Zoological Society of London (ZSL).

Marco Lambertini, director general of WWF International, told Reuters mismanagement was pushing "the ocean to the brink of collapse".

"There is a massive, massive decrease in species which are critical", both for the ocean ecosystem and food security for billions of people

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...ince-1970/

According to a study published by Marine Policy, the world’s shark population is experiencing a significant decline with perhaps 100 million or more sharks being lost every year. This time it is the turn of the top predators of Australia’s east coast, whose numbers have dropped straight down alarmingly in the last half a century.

In a new study, it has shown that species like hammerheads, great whites and tiger sharks that live in the waters off the coast of Queensland have dropped by as much as 92 percent in just 50 years

https://auxx.me/shark-numbers-along-the-...-50-years/
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
  


Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)