• 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


Dec 2019 comments
#1
Contemporary society is locked in a narrative, a normalcy bias, which says that the way things are is an absolute requirement for a good life.  We believe we are on the peak of civilization, rocketing forward exponentially into a fantastic techy future, perhaps ready to explore new worlds.   

Key to the narrative is that we absolutely must have an energy grid powered by fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Rather suddenly, almost stealthily, renewable energy is taking over.  It seems like last week (20 years ago) all the scientists were saying wind and solar was a technical impossibility.  There were so many well reasoned, mathematically supported reasons why we needed to stay the course of oil and nuclear.  Mankind would not even survive without them

Now there are a dozen countries nearly 100% renewable.  In the history of civilization, its an amazing change in the blink of an eye.  Yet the normalcy bias is entrenched.  The grid.  The grid needs to be a smart grid, and it is.  The grid of the U.S. extends seamlessly into Canada. Its all part of the unalterable and absolute requirement for society.  The grid, the two party system of politics, the tax system, the banking system, capitalism  your steady job and your 401K,  an endless home loan.

Its as if we have a collective amnesia that we have lived without these systems for the vast majority of the time.  If human history, say 120,000 years was written in a book 600 pages long, our current situation would be written in the last page. And its not that that vast history was somehow inconsequential or of little valuable accomplishment.  The fossil fuel era is about 250 years old and the grid about 100 years old.  IF we plotted history again, just from the great pyramids in a timeline of 30 pages, the last page would be the one where we used fossil fuels and the grid.  Just thumb through any book of architecture history and marvel at the fantastic accomplishments, still standing

We dont need to go backward...but we certainly dont need to stay in our normalcy bias,  believing we will certainly perish without the system, the grid, the political rhetoric, the monetary system as it is.  And then theres the nuclear renaissance!  The super poison and weapon which will lay waste all of humankind's accomplishments.
[Image: countries_installed_capacity.png]
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#2
If you go back in time to stonehenge....about 6000 years ago man was primitive.  You go back 6000 years more and basically you have the cave man.   Archeologists have carefully recreated the look of the cave man and we are all familiar with it.  An IQ of about 50,  a lumbering uncoordinated walk in a stooped position,  zero grooming capability, smeared with dirt and ashes,  brutish.   Its worse for the neanderthal....short, fat, stupid, ugly and dirty. 

What natural animal has such tangled hair?  Even rats groom themselves better than this.  You can bet, he is the ancestor of a future archeologist

[Image: ao-the-last-neanderthal.jpg]

Then some things changed the scientists minds.  They found Neanderthal DNA in humans.  Neanderthals suddenly became more agile, better looking and more intelligent. If we had to have renderthal DNA, they better be of good stock!  Another discovery was an architectural find dating to 12,000 years ago.  Before the invention of the wheel,  before metal...before writing, pottery and before agriculture,  brutish and stupid cave men made beautiful architecture with fine carvings on 20 ton pillars of stone  https://damienmarieathope.com/2017/03/go...de-temple/

The point is that we have been  creating a myth about our human history.  Our bias formed a picture...that our ancestors were in every way less than what we are now,  living a miserable life and that we have reached a high pinnacle of intelligence athleticism and achievement in the last few thousand years culminating in the present fossil fuel/ nuclear energy grid politica/capitalist system.  It is a very egomaniacal view and not a very smart one!

Discoveries like those above forced a change in our belief.  "Archaeological evidence shows that the Neanderthals in Europe and Southwest Asia had a system of religious beliefs and performed rituals such as funerals. A burial site in Shanidar Cave in modern-day northeastern Iraq suggests that a Neanderthal’s family covered his body with flowers"

Thousands of years before oil nuclear and the grid,  men and women had time and ability to make fine artworks, jewelry and tools.  They made huge architectural works, ....they loved each other, they had at least and probably more brain capacity than we have now.  If you could travel back in time, what great thing from today would you bring to show them?   Would you try to pack the neanderthal into apartments and collect rent and taxes? Promise them labor jobs?

At a conference of producers and distributors of energy (nuclear, gas, oil etc)....the ets18 energy thought summit, this remark was made

"What’s less human than digital, but what’s more human than dreaming? These contradictions come together as we dream of a world blanketed by sensors, communications, data and autonomous systems to deliver greater reliability, efficiency and sustainability. But what will it take to really make this dream happen?"

Someone will think Im suggesting we go back to living like cave men.  They will have missed the whole point, and probably that quote above will sound great.   Our ancestors, and the other animals...the elephants and dolphins...they werent so crazy as to dream of a borg like smart grid, where everyone would be hooked up to it, monitored, charged and taxed while working all day long for some rich impersonal corporation, perpetually in debt...as the world was paved, poisoned and plundered....
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#3
'There's something terribly wrong': Americans are dying young at alarming rates
Joel Achenbach
The Washington Post
Tue, 26 Nov 2019 17:00 UTC
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/th...story.html
Quote:The all-cause death rate — meaning deaths per 100,000 people — rose 6 percent from 2010 to 2017 among working-age people in the United States.

The JAMA report looked at life expectancy and mortality across the country from 1959 through 2017. Final life expectancy numbers for 2018 will be released soon by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The general trend: Life expectancy improved a great deal for several decades, particularly in the 1970s, then slowed down, leveled off and finally reversed course after 2014, decreasing three years in a row.

The article gives many guesses at the cause of the decline, but unsurprisingly, radioactive contamination isn't included as a possible factor.  Corporate control over our lives isn't considered either unless you consider 'stress' to be caused by the American way of life.  The overall death rates aren't increasing for the rest of the developed world.  Whatever the causes, its a disturbing trend.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#4
sounds like theres a new killer renaissance
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#5
Our good friend, a nurse practitioner, said just before she died of acute leukemia, "Im dying because of Fukushima".  I can add that she was a professional, not given to conspiracy theory. 

We will never know all of the contributing factors to a disease state.  But we know nuke fallout undeniably contributes.

In Hawaii, 137Cs inventories ranged from 20 to 2200 Bq m-2.    Radioactive iodine was 5 to 100 times greater than cesium, and if the rainout in Hawaii had the same radionuclide ratio, then there might have been up to 220,000 bq/meter.  The deposition is irregular with rain and fog playing major roles. Various aerodynamic and drying factors cause hot spots of highly elevated radioactivity.  

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29065354

A survey of ocean sediment showed a high proportion of cesium rich microparticles with large heterogeneity.  This has important implications on the transport and health impact to ocean animals.  Water column measurement years after the disaster is a very limited measure of potential harm to the aquatic ecosystems.  

As the map posted by DKitty shows, the fallout made its way over the U.S.  As a citizen scientist, I was amazed and alarmed at the decrease in bird and insect life.  Many people noted the same.  Several people I know became ill and several died!   Im not saying the fallout was a major contributing factor...we cant know.   But its worth repeating that the European Committee on Radiation Risk found that internally incorporated fallout was 300 to 1000 times more radiotoxic than assumed by the ICRP model, based on numerous epidemiological studies as well as autopsy studies of Chernobyl victims

The 5 to 100 times greater quantity of radioactive iodine compared to cesium is almost never mentioned.  The fast decay rate somehow gives scientists the freedom to disregard it.   Thats a bit like disregarding the hail of bullets that flew through Bonnie and Clyde's car just because they are no longer remaining IN the car.
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#6
Ay Caramba, the hormesis brigade is back.

They sure are persistent.   

A journal has dedicated an issue to the LNT hormesis thing, headed up by Edward Calabrese ;

'Assessing the Scientific Basis of the Linear No Threshold (LNT) Model with Threshold Models for Cancer Risk Assessment of Radiation and Chemicals.'
"If LNT were a biologically valid dose-response model, the appearance and evolution of life on Earth would not have been possible."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/chemico-biological-interactions/vol/301/suppl/C

Let me start by mentioning that Calabrese has somewhere stated that the hormesis study should be decoupled from the idea of a net positive result. 

It is recognized that the multifaceted hormesis effect overlaps with the bystander effect, generally considered a negative biological response to radiation.  While Calabrese and his colleagues really get into their hormesis intrigue, they seem unable to back up to see the forest for the trees.    ...I'll get to that in a second...

The issue starts out with Calabrese giving a positively exhaustive historical account of how the LNT dose model was developed and instituted.  Its perhaps of some interest to see how personal motive and ego have such strong impacts on the scientific world.   Nobody is unbiased. 

While Calabrese states that it was not his intention to suggest new policy models to succeed the LNT model,  the underlying intent is clear.  The LNT model is costing too much money and hindering the use of radiation!

The study of hormesis and bystander effects moves forward. Knowledge is a good thing.  The hormesis promoters want to believe the studies support a reduction in the radiation protection policies.  i.e. dont spend so much time and money trying to protect the people from nuclear radiation exposure.  Ist that a conflict of interest? The same  bias they accuse early promoters of the LNT model of.  An underlying motive or ideology guides the conclusions they make from the studies...conclusions others would not necessarily make. Moreover, they must ignore studies like the ones showing even low level dental x-rays have deleterious effects, or background level fallout reducing intelligence.  One wonders how do they deal with the ECRR?

For me, the error underlying their conclusion is spelled out clearly in their papers;   The hormesis effect is a slew of BIOLOGICAL CRISIS CONTROL  mechanisms.  They say it;   adding radiation STRESS  results in defense and repair.  Stress which at a higher level would lead to disease and death.  They want to believe that adding the weight of extra radiation stress is a good thing.  If a study shows an upregulated DNA repair mechanism due to radioactive insult, thats proof in their minds that we should welcome the toxin....we should liken it to exercise.   They see a tree and miss the forest.   The broad, inclusive perspective is that all living things are already stressed, and to varying degrees.  The precautionary principle stipulates we should consider that natural radiation stress as an optimum and extra radiation, especially different kinds of radiation sources with uncertain and potentially super toxic effects to be non optimum. 

Stress and the inflammatory state is now considered the underlying cause of most chronic and even acute diseases, including cancer.   If extra radiation stress boosts repair, it also creates a new and chronic level of stress, a metabolic shift toward fending off constant insult and attack. 

Are they sure they WANT this?;

"Organisms undergo stress during... chronic low-dose environmental exposure, e.g. when living in a polluted area. Environmental exposures are suspected to induce delayed adverse effects that might cause increased susceptibility to some cancers and to metabolic diseases through direct metabolic dysregulation or affecting gene transcription by epigenetic regulation processes that can even impact the offspring."

"dysregulated pathways include those for the metabolism of linoleic acid, vitamin B6, riboflavin, sphingolipids, glycerophospholipids, glycine, serine, threonine, other fatty acid metabolisms, tryptophan, arginine, and proline, for the biosynthesis of fatty acids and steroids and finally for the elongation of fatty acids in mitochondria."

'Applying a multiscale systems biology approach to study the effect of chronic low-dose exposure to uranium in rat kidneys'

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....19.1577567

read more about metabolomics and radiation here  http://caferadlab.com/thread-3662.html


So its easy to see this;  medical radiation, in the form of 'therapeutic' and diagnostic x rays, is considered the largest man made source of non acute radiation exposure.  Its roughly equal to background radiation.  So ALREADY  the population has doubled their radiation stress above the natural condition.  And given the great uncertainty in background radiation toxicity, the radiation stress is likely much more than double...it could be increased a thousand times by a doubling of radiation exposure.   Moreover, many of those receiving medical radiation are already sick or injured.  If you allow more radiation exposure by relaxing dose restrictive policy, you push  those people who are already stressed into a higher state of stress and disease.  This is true even if you believe some radiation is 'good' for you.   There is no way around this, due to the heterogeneity of the population circumstance.   I mean its so obvious that it boggles the mind how anybody could stake a claim that more radioactive poison is good for the population.

Its like a big lineup of people heading to a deadly drop off over a cliff, with a candy stand half way along the line.  If you nudge the line of people forward so some people can get a lolly,  the people closest to the edge get pushed to their doom.

There is another factor, an error made by almost everybody;  they assume that ionizing radiation is all the same 'stuff'.  But a quick look at the dose coefficients from the ICRP shows a positively huge range...some radionuclides are considered many thousands of times more toxic per becquerel.  This is compounded by internal vs external exposure and many more factors.  factors inadequately taken into account by that hormesis research community.  The same radiation dose may be many thousands of times more toxic from one source compared to another.  

The result are huge research gaps.  They are making unsound assumptions which are already based on the ICRP model, the model they wish to disprove.  They use the ICRP LNT model to establish dose.  In order to be definitive, they would have to test all the relevant radionuclides in all forms, and exposure routes at all exposure durations.   They are nowhere near that.

In my opinion, the research and historical documentation done by Calabrese and colleagues is welcome....but their conclusions are misplaced.   For greater health of the living world, we need to reduce the nuclear super toxins which have already killed millions.  Seeing the forest instead of a tree, thats to say using the context of the real world, hormesis/bystander effects tell us that even low level unnatural radiation, below clinical manifestation of disease, is driving the living world to stress and disease. 

To put it simply;   Dont foist super toxins on the people and call it healthy!

However, I support the right of those believers to take their OWN plutonium pill and use nuke fallout inhalers.
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#7
The ICRP linear no threshold model is the basis for the legal existence of the nuclear industry and the policy surrounding it.   People in the camp of Chris Busby want it thrown out as a kind of crime against humanity.  The goal of course is to put an end to nuclear plants and bombs and the poisoning of the ecosphere.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have people also arguing against the ICRP model,  but wanting MORE radiation use.   In some cases, even the exact same data is driving people to opposite conclusions.  The science of radiobiology is marked by absolutely huge disparities in belief and conclusions by experts in the field. 

Some excerpts from the papers mentioned above;

"All of the studies supporting the LNT were conducted at very high doses/dose-rates, hundreds of thousands times greater than background. "

'Re-evaluation of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model using new paradigms and modern molecular studies'

SujeentharTharmalingamaShayenthiranSreetharanbAntone L.BrookscDouglas R.Boreham
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...via%3Dihub

"Advances in LDR biology and cell molecular techniques demonstrate that the LNT model does not appropriately reflect the biology or the health effects at the low dose range. The main pitfall of the LNT model is due to the extrapolation of mutation and DNA damage studies that were conducted at high radiation doses delivered at a high dose-rate. These studies formed the basis of several outdated paradigms that are either incorrect or do not hold for LDR doses. "

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

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...9718315254

"Modern biology has now unequivocally demonstrated that biological systems mount a plethora of highly integrated defenses to a continuous chorus of endogenous and exogenous attacks (e.g., ROS) on core genetic material and function. These defenses (expressed at subcellular, cellular, organ and whole body levels) are essential to sustaining cell and organism homeostasis. This massive explosion in fundamental understanding of cell and organism function now clearly points to the need to examine the impact of this vast body of knowledge on the scientific legitimacy of maintaining the LNT model as a continuing and scientifically defensible driver of radiation and chemical carcinogen risk assessment."
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#8
Im coming out with a product for hormesis enthusiasts

~ Dr Pendergrass Plutonium Pills ~

guaranteed to induce senescence, apoptosis and other bystander/hormesis effects,
 changing your metabolism from its natural state to one under constant plutonium exposure

Enjoy changing your genomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic processes by taking 
a daily regimen of Dr Pendergrass's Plutonium Pills
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#9
Things you can do if the entire energy grid collapses

Play vivaldi on a recorder

https://youtu.be/hggISFswKcw

Mankind lived 99.8%  of history without the oil, coal, nuclear energy grid
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#10
great business opportunity!  how to turn 750 million into five billion and have the public pay for it without even knowing!

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/05/how-the-...ility.html

 the DOE , under the Judgment Fund,  paid out more in legal claims than any other agency.  Your tax dollars at work, paying nuclear companies to store deadly radioactive waste.   Nuke waste; so toxic for so long, humans have not figured out what to do with it, besides illegal dumping.....(or making tax payer funded radioactive parks.)
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#11
How to decommission a nuclear power plant cost effectively

" It was a laborious process to eliminate the radioactive material from the site to make it suitable for other uses. In 2001, Oregon's massive Trojan  reactor was enclosed in concrete foam, sheathed in blue shrink-wrapped plastic, and barged up the Columbia River to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington. There it was buried in a forty-five-foot deep pit and covered with six inches of gravel. It was the first commercial reactor to be moved and buried in one piece, the largest such device to be decommissioned. In May 2006, the 500-foot-tall cooling tower was imploded.

Trojan’s spent fuel rods are still stored on site. Nearly 800 rods sit in a pool next to the Columbia River, in anticipation of the day a permanent solution to their disposal is found..  Meanwhile, tax payers fund the corporation to store the waste under the DOE judgement fund.  Because the Yucca Mt thing didnt work out.

The public ALWAYS fund everything.   Who else?


The nuclear company General Electric got the taxpayers to turn the failed power plant into a park. Trojan Park is a 75-acre park located on property at the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant.  Turning nuke waste sites into parks on tax payer money is a standard procedure around the world. 
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#12
His voice echoed in the abandoned halls of the effort.


HELLO?..HELLO?...HELLO?...HELLO?...HELLO?...HELLO?......
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#13
Great Job opportunity....work your own hours! sell ~ Dr Pendergrass Plutonium Pills ~ at radioactive parks to hormesis enthusiasts!

A hormesis lovers paradise, Staten Island Park.  Alter your metabolism with radioactivity while having fun with the whole family!

Radiation Cleanup at Park on Staten Island to Take Years
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/nyreg...years.html

488-acre park was the depository for 15 million cubic yards of fill in the 1940s and 1950s, including radioactive medical and sanitary waste. 

====================

Niagara Falls State Park, a perfect place for hormesis enthusiasts to bring their children.

Piles of radioactive dirt ...radioactive slag....greet visitors to Niagara Falls State Park
https://buffalonews.com/2018/08/22/radio...tate-park/

A 1986 federal report listed about 100 radioactive hot spots in the region
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#14
 Rat Rhetoric Fleeces Farnworth

The forensic team who have worked for years to understand why the people of Farnworth abandoned the city which was overrun by rats who pillaged and polluted the grainery and water supplies with fetid urine, feces and disease have finally made a breakthrough.  A key question,  why didnt the people try to eradicate the rat pests has now been answered.   New research reveals the rats learned to say three phrases, and thus destroy the city without any persecution.  

1)  we are boosting national security
2) there is no immediate harm to the public
3) we are creating jobs

further evidence shows the rats were just learning to say "we are turning this into a park" just  before the city was destroyed and abandoned..

Children were the first to  hear the high pitched rat rhetoric, who then brought the message to the adults in a prepubescent initiative called "how dare you"
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#15
Gray whales are dying in large numbers. Since January, at least 167 North Pacific gray whales have washed ashore dead from Mexico to Alaska. The actual number of deaths may be ten times that. 

They seem to be starving.  Even though scientists dont know,  the  assumed cause is climate change.  The other theory is that even though the whales are at a fraction of their pre whaling era numbers,  the population has exceeded the ocean carrying capacity.  

Oh, and they are dismayed that the public sometimes mistrusts oceanographers.
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#16
The future of all life: Indigenous sovereignty and the Fukushima nuclear disaster

https://sfbayview.com/2019/03/the-future...-disaster/
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#17
I didnt realize TEPCO kept spraying water from the concrete pump on unit four for almost 100 days

NEA timeline

https://www.oecd-nea.org/news/2011/NEWS-04.html

18 May-17 June 2011 (Days 69-100)
Crews continue to cool the spent fuel pools at units 1 to 4 by injecting water directly into the pools with electrical 
pumps and concrete pumping trucks. 

Finally
On 16 December 2011, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda announced that the three reactors at Fukushima 
Daiichi, damaged by the 11 March earthquake and tsunami, are in a stable state of code shutdown.

Visual inspections and analysis of water samples indicate that damage to the fuel in the unit 4 spent fuel pool is not as 
significant as previously thought.
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#18
cesium rich microparticles came mainly from unit 3.....(or possibly 4?)

The study’s authors found that the cesium-rich microparticle distribution was consistent with the trajectories of the major radioactivity plumes released from the Fukushima Daiichi site during the late afternoon of March 14, 2011, to the late afternoon of March 15, 2011.

This may indicate that microparticles only formed during this short period.

https://ens-newswire.com/2019/10/22/high...ma-mapped/
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#19
If you dont use techniques to measure the micro particles of fallout, you can underestimate the radiation quantity.  Hello Woods Hole

"Since 1945, a series of nuclear and radiological sources have contributed to the release of radioactive particles containing refractory elements into the environment. Several years of research have demonstrated that the particle composition will depend on the source, while the release scenarios will influence particle properties of relevance for environmental transfer. Radioactive particles can also carry sufficient amount of radioactivity (MBq) and represent point sources of radiological concern. Most radiological assessment models, however, are based on bulk concentrations, assuming that radionuclides in the environment are evenly distributed. In contrast, radioactive particles and thereby doses are unevenly distributed, while leaching of radionuclides from particles prior to measurements can be partial, potentially leading to underestimation of inventories"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...nvironment
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#20
seastar deaths are back in the news.   Its a horrible tragedy, affecting the entire ecosystem.    

As a citizen scientist, Im disappointed at the unscientific way the oceanographic community assumes the cause is climate change.  Actually they first say the cause is climate change, then later say it may contribute to the severity of the actual cause which is a virus.  Then later they say they dont know its a virus.   Then they admit that the temperature stress is not due to climate change after all,  its the warm blob caused by weather systems and natural oscillations, but that it could be indicitive of what climate change could bring in the future.

If it werent for the horrendous seriousness of the situation, the unscientific fumbling about of the science community could be entertaining.

Since 2013, sea star wasting disease has killed so many starfish along the Pacific Coast that scientists say it's the largest disease epidemic ever observed in wild marine animals.

So for example, in the absence of facts or examination of why warmer water might be the cause, they still throw out their message of climate change.

"The study did not examine why warmer water might make sea stars more susceptible to disease. The authors hypothesize that the animals' relatively simple immune systems might be weaker when sea stars get hot."

A typical headline;
"Our warming oceans are killing the sea star population"

However the article says the cause is a virus.   An unknown virus, because the Denisovan virus theory didnt hold.

The seastars have been decimated from the cold waters of Alaska and down to deep cold waters of 3000 feet.  Because they dont know the cause and there is no data to prove the climate warming theory, they have changed the name of the disease.   

"Disease among sea stars is likely caused by multiple factors, not just one factor like SSaDV or rising temperature. The 'disease' is actually multiple diseases. Understanding this, it's a lot more complicated to explain than simply a virus -- like SSaDV -- coming along or water temperature increasing by way of climate change,"
explains lead author Ian Hewson, associate professor of microbiology

The paper suggests renaming the wasting disease to Asteroid Idiopathic Wasting Syndrome because the term correlates with an array of symptoms, "which is more correct for describing this situation, as there are likely multiple diseases present,"

So to recap, they dont know if warming has anything to do with it (there is a study showing correlation of warm water and disease outbreak in a region of California, but it doesnt explain anything and cant account for the die off in cold waters.)  And they dont know what the disease is but they think its probably many diseases, however they dont what they are.  So they want to rename it to a more scientifically accurate description.   

Even though they havent figured anything out, the group does not let climate change off the hook. "Since some of those disease causes may include swings in temperature or precipitation, ultimately which may be related to climate change, we need to focus our efforts on remediating climate change," he said.

Really?  Thats your answer about the largest disease epidemic ever observed in wild marine animals.? Were dumbfounded but lets remedy climate change...?


From Huff Post

Massive Pacific Coast Starfish Die-Off Is Linked To Global Warming
“What we think is that the warm water anomalies made these starfish more susceptible to the disease that was already out there,” study author Joe Gaydos  “To think that warmer water temperature itself can cause animals to get disease quicker ... is kind of a a one-two punch,” Gaydos added. “It’s a little nerve-wracking.”

OK, global warming is making them more susceptible to an unknown disease thats already out there...tell me how
"The study did not determine exactly how the warmth may have exacerbated the disease"

As a citizen scientist, Im offended by the unscientific mindset and method with unsupported conclusions of climate change plastered over the internet and science magazines.  So I did a deeper search and found this more reasoned article



"On the central coast of British Columbia, Canada, observations of diseased sea stars in subtidal surveys corresponded with the arrival of an anomalous marine heat wave (Burt et al. in review). On the other hand, symptoms were most severe during winter in Southern California and the timing of P. ochraceus population declines showed no clear patterns with water temperature anomalies when comparing multiple regions (Miner et al. 2018). Similarly, Hewson et al. (2018) did not find convincing evidence for a correlation between water temperature and patterns of disease symptoms across sites from southern California to Washington State. The disease frequency was actually negatively related to average water temperature in 2014 in Oregon, though anomalously warm May temperatures did coincide with the start of the outbreak (Menge et al. 2016). ..."

So....the science and the headlines dont match. In fact....the seastars just about all died and the kelp forests got 90% wiped out, tens of thousands of birds died, whales are washing up dead, the orcas are starving, sea lion pups dead all over the beach...and the oceanography people... they've got nothing, just a wild grasp at climate change.     Perhaps a quote or two;

“Bullshit is the glue that binds us as a nation.”
― George Carlin

“Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about"
― Harry G. Frankfurt
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
  


[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Image Verification
Please enter the text contained within the image into the text box below it. This process is used to prevent automated spam bots.
Image Verification
(case insensitive)

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  November 2019 visitor comments Code 130 9,040 11-30-2019, 11:39 PM
Last Post: Code
  Visitor Comments Oct 2019 Horse 142 19,849 10-29-2019, 07:38 PM
Last Post: Horse
  Visitor comments aug 2019 Code 166 25,489 10-11-2019, 06:56 PM
Last Post: Code

Forum Jump:


Browsing: 2 Guest(s)