• 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


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Pacific genocide
#21
(12-25-2017, 11:10 PM)Code Wrote: Buesseler and Cullen....they arent stupid, that is for sure. But I get the feeling they actually believe their position, even if they are aware there is some news blackout. 

Cullen, that's the spelling of his name, thanks, Code. Both of those jokers aren't stupid, correct. But, they are working for and contributing to an organization (WHOI) with direct ties (financial and policy wise) that are of military origin. Buesseler and Cullen are part of the establishment that establishes and enforces the controls on nuclear radiation data and can't be trusted
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#22
(12-26-2017, 01:53 AM)vital1 Wrote:
Cesium-137 is not the same as stable Cesium. It is a completely different chemical creature because it decays to a new element Barium-137m or Barium. (See Chart Above) The biological chemical properties and radioactivity of the decay daughters have to also be taken into account. Water soluble barium compounds are also toxic. 
 I found that the quantity of radioactive cesium atoms amounting to a toxic dose is extremely small. One atom out of trillions in a cell.  A severe and nearly fatal dose is about 150 atoms per cell. (these atomic quantities should be recalculated to make sure they are about right...not difficult using Wolfram Alpha).  The point about decay elements is good but the levels and toxicity are very low. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/MMG/MMG.asp?id=321&tid=57.  The barium 137m has a half life of 2.5 minutes.  Thus, while chemical toxicity contributes, it appears to be an ultra small quantity.

Im actually trying to deconstruct the meme of radioactive bullets and reduce the chemical toxicity as an explanation for fallout toxicity. Thats not to take away the damage of direct DNA hits or chemical heavy metal toxicity, but these are not adequate descriptions of the effect and are discounted by scientists one might wish to debate.

But biological response is not equivalent to direct insult, as shown by the allergic response.  The tiniest information signal from an allergen is enough to promote a huge biological effect. I know a person who can detect a hidden wool object which is under a towel...no wool contact is made. In this regard, the total signature of the chemical and radiological presence CAN and should be considered.  It appears that biological response is the main driver of low level radiation effects, not direct chemical and radiological bullet hits.

We may have 6 million radioactive potassium atoms in each cell, ready to fly apart at any moment, while having only one Cs137 atom.  I want to show that its the single cesium atom that accounts for all of the radioactive damage.  The path to a convincing argument is not so easy or straightforward because the science supporting the conclusion is wide spread, not collated into an accepted new standard of dosimetry, and many things are not yet known. 
 
Much of the current explanation for the effect of low level fallout is the bystander effect. This is a biological response, somewhat akin to the allergic response, and not a direct effect.  This helps differentiate the effect from different radionuclides, which is what the anti nuclear movement needs to overturn the ideological and legal stronghold of the nuclear industry.

'Radiation-induced bystander effects are defined as those biological effects in cells that have not been directly traversed by ionizing radiation, but are in close proximity to cells that have been. In Chinese hamster ovary (CHO), cells irradiated by low doses of a particles, in which fewer than 1% of the cellular nuclei were actually hit by the ionizing radiation, an increase in sister chromatid exchanges was observed in 30% of the cells [204]. Using microbeam technology, irradiating just one cell in a population of cells with a single ionizing particle has been shown to elicit bystander effects. Interestingly, bystander effects do not exhibit a dose-response relationship, at least not in vitro'

'using a charged-particle microbeam to target a single alpha particle to individual glioma cells through the cytoplasm, there is evidence of a bystander response in the neighboring, non-irradiated glioma or fibroblasts such that the yield of micronuclei was increased by 36% for the glioma population and 78% for the bystander fibroblast population.) Importantly, the yield of bystander-induced micronuclei was independent of whether the cytoplasm or nucleus of a cell was targeted. This finding shows that direct DNA damage is not required for switching on important cell-signaling mechanisms after low-dose irradiation and that, under these conditions, the whole cell should be considered a sensor of radiation exposure.'
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3889709/

(12-26-2017, 05:10 AM)piajensen Wrote:
(12-25-2017, 11:10 PM)Code Wrote: Buesseler and Cullen....they arent stupid, that is for sure. But I get the feeling they actually believe their position, even if they are aware there is some news blackout. 

Cullen, that's the spelling of his name, thanks, Code. Both of those jokers aren't stupid, correct. But, they are working for and contributing to an organization (WHOI) with direct ties (financial and policy wise) that are of military origin. Buesseler and Cullen are part of the establishment that establishes and enforces the controls on nuclear radiation data and can't be trusted

Pia, I had read that Buesseler and Cullen both have ties to the military, but didnt recall the ties with the WHO.  I suppose its a given that all big government funded agencies would have some tie.  But if you come across a link, please re-post it here, thanks

I think my point stands though, or rather the question; Do Buesseler and Cullen and the thousands of others in these agencies like Woods Hole, Scripps and NOAA believe or not the mainstream dosimetry?  I get the feeling they do believe it, and are probably still eating fish with zero concern.  On the other hand, they seem VERY concerned by global warming and are quick to attribute seemingly everything to it.  I find this unscientific and rather infuriating.
 
Reply
#23
Pacific genocide, there is a glaring problem or disconnect; It is not recognized by the media, not recognized by oceanographers.  All mortality is ascribed to climate change!  Incredible.  This says to me there is a primary flaw in the three pound human brain.  We go along with the masses, our beliefs are rooted in emotionally held beliefs, not fact or rationality.  Rationality itself is hijacked by dogma....stubbornly held, emotionally pinned beliefs that both intellects and common people use to build their view of the world, what is true, what is wrong. see footnote


Kevin Blanch has walked the entire pacific coast and documented decimated tide pools and dead animals on the beach. Likewise Dana Durnford in Canada.  These two voices are dismissed, supposedly because they are not academicians. I had to have a look myself so I drove 600 miles over to the beach that I used to live on as a kid. Sure enough, the tidepools look lifeless, bird numbers seem significantly reduced.  What will it take for our 'best and brightest' scientists and institutes to recognize an ecosystem crash? Will they continue to blame everything on climate change?

Here are 61 pages of mass mortality compiled by Kelly Ann Thomas, over at 'nukepro's' site

61 pages of death of the pacific

http://www.nukepro.net/2015/09/61-pages-...cific.html

This is a serious problem with our professionals!  In fact, we should be ashamed, really ashamed!  This problem  of professional blindness is sometimes referred to as the Semmelweis syndrome.  About 40 years after the Lewis and Clark expidition across the N American continent (to put it in historical perspective), surgeons were not washing their hands...they didnt believe in hygiene!.  One man, Ignaz Semmelweis proved and attempted to spearhead hygiene. In response, he was ridiculed by the medical establishment, put in a mental institution, beaten up and died there.  It would be almost another 40 years before doctors finally started washing up.  Yet still its a problem! Docs SAY they wash, but DONT! This kills roughly 100,000 Americans every year and sickens 1.7 million more.




Ignaz Semmelweis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis


http://www.methodquarterly.com/2014/11/handwashing/

footnote on dogma
[we may laugh at these old theories, thinking that NOW we have it right http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2010/11/the...-theories/  but make no mistake, future generations...if there are any, will be laughing at this generations mistakes; 'A 2015 editorial in The Lancet observed that "much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue." A 2015 British Academy of Medical Sciences report suggested that the false discovery rate in some areas of biomedicine could be as high as 69 percent. ... the Stanford biostatistician John Ioannidis estimated that the non-replication rates in biomedical observational and preclinical studies could be as high as 90 percent. http://reason.com/archives/2016/08/26/mo...ong-or-use]
 
Reply
#24
"In Chinese hamster ovary (CHO), cells irradiated by low doses of a particles, in which fewer than 1% of the cellular nuclei were actually hit by the ionizing radiation, an increase in sister chromatid exchanges was observed in 30% of the cells [204]. Using microbeam technology, irradiating just one cell in a population of cells with a single ionizing particle has been shown to elicit bystander effects."

This experiment reinforces the premise that embryonic sea life is hypersensitive to radioactive contamination.

Code, a quote from one of your previous posts in this discussion.

"I think the 'experts' consider this carried the worst of the fallout to the bottom of the sea with the dead plankton."

A huge decimation of plankton and zoo-plankton population would have created dynamic changes to Northern Pacific ecosystem.

Phytoplankton are at the start of the aquatic food chain, which account for 30 per cent of the world’s intake of animal protein.

Mass plankton death would crash the food chain, and cause mass starvation of marine life up the food chain.

Which is what we have been witnessing!

The plankton and zoo-plankton contribute to heat regulation of the oceans. Their mass death resulted in ocean water temperature increases. Which is also what was witnessed after Fukushima. The so call warm blob, as they named it, appeared in the Northern Pacific Ocean after Fukushima.

The death of the plankton and zoo-plankton would also effect the UV levels in the ocean. Mass death of plankton and zoo-plankton would mean that UV radiation would penetrate deeper into the ocean.

Excessive UV effects on ecosystems

 
Extract:
 
“Aquatic wildlife is particularly vulnerable Phytoplankton are at the start of the aquatic food chain, which account for 30 per cent of the world’s intake of animal protein. Phytoplankton productivity is restricted to the upper layer of the water where sufficient light is available. However, even at current levels, solar UV-B radiation limits reproduction and growth. A small increase in UV-B exposure could significantly reduce the size of plankton populations, which affects the environment in two ways. With less organic matter in the upper layers of the water, UV radiation can penetrate deeper into the water and affect more complex plants and animals living there. Solar UV radiation directly damages fish, shrimp, crab, amphibians and other animals during their early development. Pollution of the water by toxic substances may heighten the adverse effects of UV radiation, working its way up the food chain. Furthermore less plankton means less food for the animals that prey on them and a reduction in fish stocks, already depleted by overfishing.”

Article: (this link now appears to be broken. The extract above is from the article when it was available.)

http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/ozon.../1389.aspx

The evidence is that introduction of multiple environment radioactive and chemical toxins from the Fukushima Catastrophe site, into the Northern Pacific ecosystem, has had a domino effect throughout the Northern Pacific Ocean food chain.

It is not just that the plankton died, end of story!
CafeRadLab  Free Guides and Resources For Everyone Here!

Get Prepared For Earth Changes!

The purpose of life is to learn to express your personal energy Creatively and Lovingly!


 
Reply
#25
Yes Vital1.  I was going to get into the pacific genocide starting from plankton, the Kuroshio current, birthplace of much of the ecosystem of the Pacific, chitin bioaccumulation factors, the plankton effect on cloud seeding, the subsequent plausible/probable cause of the ocean warm blob.  

Even the black mold and other fungi have a part to  play in the systemic chain of events that results in the pacific genocide and animal cancers and other effects.  It IS a chain of events, not just radiation hits to DNA.  

Anti nukers scoff at the banana equivalent dose. But they dont in fact know anything about it. The arguments given all fall short.  Not all is known.  I have more on this subject later
 
Reply
#26
Chronic ingestion of a toxin in small amounts can have a much greater accumulative effect in the body than you would expect. Even if environment levels seem low, longer term chronic ingestion can create a bio-accumulation effect, even in Humans.

Here is cesium as an example: (It is worth listening to the entire 10 minute video.)

Around 4 minutes into this 10 minute video it points to research showing that chronic ingestion of just 10 Bq per day of cesium-137 per day over time could result in a whole body level of over 1,400 Bq. This level for a child weighing around 30 kilograms, would equate to around 50 Bq/Kg. For a 70 Kg adult the Potassium-40 level is around 61 Bq/Kg.

Post Belarus Chernobyl research found that just 10 to 30 Bq/Kg in children could seriously damage heart tissue, plus cause other serious health issues in children. This research strongly suggests that Cesium-137/134 toxicity is much greater that indicated by main stream science.

Here we have a substance that by Becquerel measurement has has only increased internal whole body radioactive background by a small amount.  Yet this research shows it produces serious chronic diseases in children.

It is not just cancers!

I would suspect this dynamic could also affecting the young offspring of Pacific Ocean sea creatures like seals etc.  Now we are only looking at Cesium here, and not the hundreds of other potential isotopic contaminants.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9d3I3S9...r_embedded
CafeRadLab  Free Guides and Resources For Everyone Here!

Get Prepared For Earth Changes!

The purpose of life is to learn to express your personal energy Creatively and Lovingly!


 
Reply
#27
bioaccumulation factors lead to questions of data reliability. For example, NOAA states quite low levels of radiation here

https://swfsc.noaa.gov/textblock.aspx?Di...D&id=20593

Tuna with 2 bq/kg Cs137.   However, thats still a bioaccumulation factor of around 200 to 1000 times if the water contains say 2 to 10 bq/m3

Perhaps the greater issue is the designation of toxicity. Mainstream science believes those levels of 50 bq/kg are entirely harmless. The deeper investigation of Chernobyl victims by Bandazhevsky and others gives the more accurate toxicity;  a systemic change toward morbidity with irreversible heart damage at those very low levels.

The studies on the bystander effect tell an even more amazing story; no cell or even entire animal need be radiated yet will still show dramatic effects by information transfer. This includes cell suicide.  

And again we have the comparison with potassium. 70 bq/kg of radiation from K-40 (potassium radioisotope) does not cause genomic instability, deformity, cancer or heart disease, yet the SAME amount of radiation from cesium does. And this is not because its added to the background radiation...its an entirely different biological response.  This is the key point that needs to be recognized.

regarding other radionuclides in the fallout; Certainly I-131 was huge, perhaps around 10x the cesium. This quiet good paper doesnt think much will come of it however http://www.npsag.org/upload/reports/00-0...0Paper.pdf.

Here we have a good write up from 'mining awareness' that sea stars have been known to be sentinels for americium241

https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/20...ear-waste/

Everything I could find on plutonium241 and its daughter americium indicated levels less than the bomb fallout era. Stock at nuke-pro did an analysis indicating positively huge quantities. I havent attempted to check his work on that but if true it adds a whole new level to the Fukushima fallout quantities.  If there were large plutonium releases, any scientist would have to admit an extinction level event.

FDA derived intervention levels;

strontium 90............. ..................   160 bq/kg
iodine-131 ............ ...................      170
cesium-137 ..............................     1200
plutonium-238 americium-241..........   2 bq/kg
ruthenium ..............................         <1
http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManua.../UCM074576

1 gram of plutonium can overdose ten million civilians
http://www.ccnr.org/max_plute_aecb.html

A lethal dose of inhaled Plutonium is 50 millionths of a gram. Thus there are 9 million lethal doses in a pound. Alarmingly, Nuclear Reactors have produced over 22 trillion Lethal Doses of Plutonium. (sorry, I dont have the link to that data, Im sure it will be argued)
 
Reply
#28
About Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute Funding.

Beginning in 1938, WHOI has received great support as well as US government contracts and has had representation from the Navy on their board of Trustees and the US Cost Guard and Navy represented in their Corporation. http://www.whoi.edu/main/annual-report

WHOI has been all over the world, mapping and recording ocean data. To understand better how the military is involved, one would have to research the various projects and organization members and affiliates. But, the point is - WHOI's relationship with military and government is deep.
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#29
(12-27-2017, 04:17 AM)piajensen Wrote: About Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute Funding.

Beginning in 1938, WHOI has received great support as well as US government contracts and has had representation from the Navy on their board of Trustees and the US Cost Guard and Navy represented in their Corporation. http://www.whoi.edu/main/annual-report

WHOI has been all over the world, mapping and recording ocean data. To understand better how the military is involved, one would have to research the various projects and organization members and affiliates. But, the point is - WHOI's relationship with military and government is deep.

OK, thanks Pia. I will add this, relevant or not

Ken Buesseler... measured Cs-137 in seawater of 0.07 to 0.3 Bq/kg in Black Sea was not a true indicator of the
total specific activity sum of 670 000 Bq per kg particulate matter

http://skeptictank.org/treasure/GP1/CHERNOR.TXT

Point being that the 'fukushima is no problem at all' message from Woods Hole is quite different than the message was about Chernobyl

We may never know the extent that the military/government and nuke industry controls the narrative.

I have to admit that in my haste I thought you were originally talking about Beusseler ties to the World Health Organization, which certainly would have gone full circle in corrupt gagging.  My fault
 
Reply
#30
what must be one of longest running demonstrations, 7 years of protest in front of the World Health Organization, calling out their subservience to the IAEA, the nuclear industry

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24005...uclearists#

Meanwhile, the European Committee on Radiation Risk estimated the bomb test era has killed 50 million.
 
Reply
#31
and speaking of Sternglass;

"it is possible to estimate that the deposition of only some 250 curies of Strontium-90 and its associated fresh fission products from a nuclear test appear to have led to a l% reduction in the California fish catch"
https://www.scribd.com/document/25834214...atch1971-1

fukushima release estimates
http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=11668

say Fuku released 2000 petabecquerels which is 54 million curies
https://www.unitjuggler.com/convert-deca...l?val=5000

thats 216,000 times the amount which reduced fish catch 1%.  If the effect is linear, thats 2000 times what is required to reduce fish catch to zero 

But if you read it like this '250 curies of strontium PLUS the curies from the associated fallout', then we need to find only the strontium release from fukushima. Estimates vary largely, but heres one of about 30 PBq  (leaking into permeated basements )
http://www.japanfocus.org/site/view/4009

thats a mere 800 thousand curies of strontium or enough to reduce fish catch to zero, 32 times over

Now, where did I make a mistake?
 
Reply
#32
(12-28-2017, 06:09 AM)Code Wrote: and speaking of Sternglass;

"it is possible to estimate that the deposition of only some 250 curies of Strontium-90 and its associated fresh fission products from a nuclear test appear to have led to a l% reduction in the California fish catch"
https://www.scribd.com/document/25834214...atch1971-1

fukushima release estimates
http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=11668

say Fuku released 2000 petabecquerels which is 54 million curies
https://www.unitjuggler.com/convert-deca...l?val=5000

thats 216,000 times the amount which reduced fish catch 1%.  If the effect is linear, thats 2000 times what is required to reduce fish catch to zero 

But if you read it like this '250 curies of strontium PLUS the curies from the associated fallout', then we need to find only the strontium release from fukushima. Estimates vary largely, but heres one of about 30 PBq  (leaking into permeated basements )
http://www.japanfocus.org/site/view/4009

thats a mere 800 thousand curies of strontium or enough to reduce fish catch to zero, 32 times over

Now, where did I make a mistake?

I can't check your calculations, but, I DO HOPE you are at least halfway wrong, though I doubt it.
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#33
The Fukushima Nuclear Catastrophe is ongoing.
 
A 1992 German risk study of a NPP core meltdown on the upper Rhine river concluded that,
 
1. Strontium-90 levels would skyrocket, and reach a peak level around 5,000 days later. Strontium-90 levels would then stay high for around another 40,000 days + !
 
We are already seeing reports of skyrocketing levels of Strontium being detected in the ground water tests, at the Fukushima Nuclear Catastrophe site.
 
2. Cesium-137 would reach peak levels after 10,000 days.
 
Interestingly, Tepco has tried to implement the counter measures suggested in this document, at the Fukushima Nuclear Catastrophe site. They have not had much success so far.
 
(Note: The charts in this study are log scale.)  http://www.irpa.net/irpa8/cdrom/VOL.1/M1_97.PDF
CafeRadLab  Free Guides and Resources For Everyone Here!

Get Prepared For Earth Changes!

The purpose of life is to learn to express your personal energy Creatively and Lovingly!


 
Reply
#34
low level radiation...connecting the dots to disprove dogma;
The thread on manganese has an important message;  the science showing the universal radioprotectant manganese is the same science that disproves a dogmatic tenet of radiation. That tenet is that low level or sub acute radiation exposure causes a stochastic effect (which is often below statistical relevance). Stochastic means "randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely."  It implies that fallout only gives a CHANCE or roll of the dice, yes/no possibility of getting cancer.

There are several things which disprove this dogma, and they come from radiation science itself.  These are the radioprotection researches, such as manganese and other agents which are anti inflammatory and free radical quenchers, supporters of mitochondria function and general metabolism.  

The bystander effect also disproves the standard radiation dose concept and the ICRP linear no threshold dose model. See the thread on the bystander effect which will be added to in time.

Radiotherapy also disproves the mainstream dogma of the stochastic theory. They are finding that radiation quality is a big factor in radiation effect. New studies using microbeam technology show fallout danger is not mainly due to direct DNA damage or even direct exposure. 

Epidemiology also proves the falsehood of the common concept of radiation dose.  Meticulous work proving hot spots of birth defects around nuke plants is discounted as not possible because the standard (and scientific looking) dosimetry, centered around this concept of the stochastic DNA mutation theory SAYS such hotspots are impossible.  This shows a DEFECT in scientific mind set; experimental results should mean more than theory that discounts them.

Finally, simple observation discounts the stochastic DNA bullet hit dogma; all of life has a significant radioactive exposure from internal k-40, a level as high and usually higher than toxic doses from fallout.  Yet this background dose did not cause deformity, genomic instability, cancer and morbidity, nor metabolic disturbance.  All of those results are due to nuclear fallout, indicating that the quality of radiation, (known and unknown), and the routes and modifiers of exposure, the biological responses are unique and all important, and disqualify the early simiplistic scientific reasoning that gave us 'radiation health physics'.  

Ionizing radiation simply cannot be lumped together with one broad assumed biological effect.  The newer understanding of fallout effect is that it reduces health through systemic metabolic impacts, such as inflammation and free radical generation, the bystander effect, This even crosses animals and species...ones not even hit by radiation. Science now knows what some of these micro-messengers are and what the metabolic shifts are.  Shifts that lead to cancer and other diseases. DNA repair can also be up-regulated; the bystander effect. This effect can make cancers more difficult to treat!

A future post will be 'would you like an earth without lightening?'  Lightening shares some surprising similarities to potassium radiation
 
Reply
#35
See foods rich in manganese in the manganese thread. http://caferadlab.com/thread-2159-post-4...ml#pid4602
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#36
Why its important to disprove the  stochastic theory of low level fallout;  There is an underlying assumption that low level radiation is not a toxic substance...but acts more like a digital switch which randomly (and rarely) mutates a cell that escapes the immune system, turning into cancer.  Like walking in a canyon, you are perfectly fine until a random rock falls on your head.   By applying some math, science can calculate your odds of getting hit by a rock, one in a million chance or something...and it sounds like good odds.  This concept is at the very heart of the science and ideology of the nuclear industry.  Its actually the legal reason nuclear can exist.  Scientists say a certain low probability is an acceptable price to pay for nuclear energy.  From this assumption, they look you straight in the face and say its impossible to prove that fallout caused this or that cancer or heart attack.

But the in-depth research coming from Chernobyl shows that low level radiation is a poison that causes some degree of morbidity or unhealthy metabolic changes in  everything...the body system, the ecological system.  Sometimes this is the rally of the body to put more energy into repair and there is a subsequent resistance to radiation...the hormesis effect.  

Even slight doses of Cs137 can cause significant pathological disorders in human and other animals;
http://chernobyl-today.org/images/storie...h_1995.pdf

Note that the greater radiation from potassium does NOT cause those pathological disorders.

Mouseau and others show an adaptation of some animals in the Chernobyl and Fukushima areas...but importantly, the over-all effect is loss of species diversity, increased deformity and dire changes to the ecosystem. A million birds are killed by a Chernobyl trap effect every year.  (I have to dig out the exact number some other time).  Thus the hormesis effect is no excuse for poisoning the earth, but its also important to recognize it because it helps to disprove the stochastic DNA mutation theory.  How? Hormesis shows that the effect from fallout is a dynamic reaction of complex metabolic changes.  These metabolic reactions are recognized to be seven times more potent at causing genetic damage than the direct radiation hits to DNA. 

radiation hitting the cytoplasm is 7 times more mutagenic than hitting the DNA
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/dow...1&type=pdf

This systemic poisoning of the body and ecosystem has an interesting effect;  Animals are eight times more sensitive to radiation effects in nature compared to the controlled conditions of the laboratory.  Woods Hole, Scripps and NOAA need to educate themselves on the advances made in radiation dosimetry of the last 20 years.

animals in the natural habitat are 8 tmies more sensitive to radiation than in isolated lab conditions;
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...1X12000240
 
Reply
#37
Pacific genocide...thats what activist/videographer Kevin Blanch calls it.   The maddening thing is that science, at least the media does not recognize it.  Yet reports of die offs do make it to press, with the common theme as follows; "scientists are befuddled and need to do more tests to discover why these animals have died, but they are certain its due to climate change"

How many times do we have to hear that unscientific balderdash? I find it a grotesque masquerade. 

But lets look at the "warm blob".  Certainly it did have some impact on ocean dynamics. 
If one looks at a map of the sea, temperatures vary widely across the surface

https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/4982...20x410.jpe

check the temperature range in the above link. 28 to 95 degrees. range of 67 deg

Now here is a map showing 'the blob' which was constantly blamed for die offs
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2...-a-map.png

what do we notice besides the blob? For one thing there are other blobs, specifically around S Africa. The other thing is the temperature range....-3.5 to +3.5   or 7 deg. The map is adjusted to show what are anomalies deviating from averages. It would be difficult to even see those blobs on a true temperature map. 

Look at a map of the habitat of anchovy and sardine....they are all over the ocean from cold Baltic sea to hot oceans off asia.   Did that mega alarming blob really kill all those animals?  The idea is that sardines and anchovies...near the base of the food chain were effected and everything else starved. Lets see if such anomalies affect catch historically

http://slideplayer.com/slide/3921963/13/...nomaly.jpg

except for the year 1998 its pretty hard to see any correspondence.  

The truth is that 'anomalies' are the norm. In fact it was decided that  the blob was part of a decadal oscillation

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/.../fig03.gif

Was Fukushima partly to blame for creating the blob? I think very possibly so. But not from any direct heating!

It is likely the famous 'warm blob' in the pacific was caused by a lack of cloud seeding from plankton. They died in mass from Fukushima!  Clouds 'force' climate far more than Co2, and cloud seeding from oceanic, microbial (they live up there) and land emitted aerosols has a lot to do with cloud formation and subsequent weather patterns. 

 Science recognizes this. Plankton have roughly 50 times the effectiveness at altering global temperature then does mans use of coal, nuclear and all heating devices (direct heating from energy use, not changes in greenhouse gas). Plankton reduces the amount of solar energy absorbed by roughly 4 watts per square meter over the course of a year because of cloud seeding. By comparison, greenhouse warming is 2.9 W/m2. A doubling of carbon dioxide would change the surface heat flux by only two watts per square meter. 

Clouds in total (not just plankton effect) cool the earth by 20 W/m2.  So, not surprisingly, its the clouds...and the sun... that influence climate! Interestingly, besides plankton, cosmic rays drive cloud cover.  "most of the global warming of the twentieth century can be quantitatively explained by the combined direct solar irradiance (changes) and indirect (cosmic ray induced low cloud) effects of solar activity"

So the other thing science blamed the blob on is a lack of cloud and wind. The wind drives crucial surface water mixing.  It is weather...cloud systems...that influence this wind and water mix action.  So its not a stretch to think the die off of plankton had an influence on cloud seeding and subsequent influence on the warm blob.

But was it the blob that caused the Pacific genocide?  Who can really believe that? Sardines and anchovies trade off population numbers. Sardines like warm water. But anyway the waters off asia are warmer than the blob off California. The monthly variation is also greater than the blob anaomoly
http://www.beach-vacations-firsthand.com...r-temp.jpg

The one thing that science has a hard time believing is that when you poison the ocean and land, things get poisoned. They would rather believe a few degrees of water  did it.
 
Reply
#38
They generally only focus on Cesium testing, because it is relatively easy and cheap to test for. Every time Japan gets hit by a rain event like a Typhoon it washes huge amounts of radioactive contamination into the Pacific Ocean.  No mention of the other isotope contaminants that would have also been washed into the Pacific Ocean!

02.04.2016-Radioactive sediment found in Fukushima rivers

Extracts:

The researchers found up to 54,500 becquerels per kg of radioactive substances in the Maeda river in Futaba town, where the plant is situated, and 39,600 becquerels in the Hiru river in Fukushima city. They also detected more than 10,000 becquerels at five other locations in four municipalities.

The prefectural government plans to study restricting access to rivers with high concentrations of radioactive materials.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-...423961.ece

---------------------

11.09.2015 - Japan floods: More than 100,000 flee after torrential rain unleashes flooding, people rescued from roofs in Joso City.

Extract:

The torrential downpour has exacerbated a contaminated water problem at the Fukushima nuclear plant as it overwhelmed the site’s drainage pumps, sending hundreds of tonnes of contaminated water flowing into the ocean, a spokesman for operator Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO) said.

Comment:

In torrential downpours like this, massive amounts of radioactive contamination are washed into the Pacific Ocean from all the local rivers, not just from the Fukushima Nuclear Plant Catastrophe site. It also threatens the structural integrity of the already damaged nuclear reactor buildings and damaged fuel pools, at the site.

This previous 2011 study found that large amounts of cesium flowed into the Pacific Ocean through the local rivers systems, after a 2011 typhoon. In a 12-month period, the amount of cesium that reached the ocean was about 10 trillion becquerels, almost the same as the figure for cesium that directly flowed into the ocean from the crippled plant during the same period.

Contamination Maps:

http://b-i.forbesimg.com/jamesconca/file...on-map.jpg

http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/wp-content/...on-Map.jpg

Torrential rain event Article:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-10/ja...te/6765562

-----------------------

29.11.2013 - Typhoons that hit Japan each year are helping spread radioactive material from the Fukushima nuclear disaster into the country’ waterways.

Extracts:

Local populations who escaped the initial fallout two-and-a-half years ago could now find their food or water contaminated by the cesium particles as they penetrate agricultural land and coastal plains, researchers warned.

Last year, the radioactive content of Japan’ rivers dropped due to fairly moderate typhoons. But more frequent and fierce storms in 2013 have brought a new flood of cesium particles.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia...03750.html

-------------------------------

These reports were sourced from "The Food Lab," or "Radiation Food Lab'" which have a huge list of up to date radioactive food contamination reports, listed by country.

http://sccc.org.au/pages/The-Food-Lab.html

or here

https://www.enviroreporter.com/2013/02/r...n-food-lab
CafeRadLab  Free Guides and Resources For Everyone Here!

Get Prepared For Earth Changes!

The purpose of life is to learn to express your personal energy Creatively and Lovingly!


 
Reply
#39
a blast from the past. Strontium from the bomb test era affected life everywhere. However theres a vast discrepancy on what nuclear health science says and what epidemiology is telling us. The ECRR says as many as 60 million people died from those tests. Studies on strontium in teeth shows people with more strontium fallout died younger. We will never know how many physical defects in man and other animals was caused by this folly. All life was affected.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/samuel-s-...97822.html

"Baby teeth of St. Louis baby boomers who died of cancer by age 50 had more than double — 122 percent more — the Sr-90 concentration than did Boomers who are alive and healthy."
 
Reply
  


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Mass Die Offs Pacific Ocean piajensen 0 1,115 01-13-2017, 02:56 AM
Last Post: piajensen
  Pacific Ocean Dumping piajensen 1 2,141 10-19-2016, 11:48 AM
Last Post: Horse

Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)