Skip to main content

View Diary: Measuring Fukushima Radioactivity in the Ocean: Why does it take so long? (78 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  WTF (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    1) from the report itself:

    "The biological data compiled in this study are likely to be of limited value for predicting radiological effects on biota."

    2) the report is from 2004, and I'm pretty sure doesn't included information from the Fukishima incident

    What are you trying to pull here?

    •  To "pull?" (0+ / 0-)

      That seems a bit rude for a civil conversation. Why don't you just come out and say what it is you mean here? I can take it.

      I have said that radioisotopes are known to bioconcentrate up to 1000 times the levels in surrounding water. This is true even according to IAEA, years before the Fukushima disaster. Do you think that has changed due to Fukushima? That radioisotopes don't concentrate up food chains anymore because that would be inconvenient to nukes?

      There are nasty health effects and very odd behaviors showing up in sea life up and down the western coast of North America. I have not specified they are directly related to Fukushima, but that is one factor in the various things we know to be 'wrong' with the ocean. The main plumes haven't even reached shorelines yet, have they? Which means the crap dumped at Fukushima isn't magically diluted by all the water in the ocean at point of entry.

      Seals, sea lions and walruses are bleeding from their eyeballs, have crusty, hairless patches on their skin and open lesions. Fish are dying, rare deep-sea animals are surfacing, whales are behaving strangely. Sea stars are dissolving in place by the millions, massive walls of fish are hiding in sheltered bays... it could be a number of things, it could be a combination of a number of things. Fukushima isn't humanity's first attempt to kill this planet's oceans, you know. It's just one in a long line of attempts to kill this planet's oceans.

      •  Hi Joieau (0+ / 0-)

        This "I'm not saying it is Fukushima but..." business is growing tiresome.  There is no evidence to link any of the various reports on websites and news organizations of dubious quality that you throw out above to radionuclides at all.  That type of speculation is a disservice to evidence based inquiry and decision making.

        Please do recall that the concentration of radionuclides in seawater will be on the order of 10 milliBq/L in the heart of the plume when it arrives next year.  That peak concentration is almost an order of magnitude lower than concentrations along the west coast in the 60's.

        •  Since I never said it was (0+ / 0-)

          Fukushima, you have to basis for the insinuation. You may wish to try and keep yourself confined to responding to what is actually said, as opposed to all this "reading-in" misrepresentation stuff. It'll help you come across as less of a salesman and more of a duly concerned ocean-keeper. Just so you know, and all.

          •  You are arguing deceptively (0+ / 0-)

            If you claim multiple people are 'misunderstanding' what you are saying, then perhaps the fault doesn't lie with your readers.

            We are discussing release and dispersal of radionuclides from Fukushima, and you state in this discussion that there is evidence of health effects on seals/sea lions.

            When asked for evidence to support this claim, you link to a study that explicitly says that relevance to biota health is limited, and has no relevance to Fukushima.

            Then, when challenged, you repeat your claim and, once again, provide no evidence to back yourself up.

            That said, I have looked into previous 'events' regarding unusual die-offs of seals/sea lions along the western coast:


            The cause of the present 2013 UME is not yet determined, but here's some info about previous UMEs:

            Q: How many sea lion Unusual Mortality Events have previously occurred in California?

            A: This is the sixth UME involving California sea lions that has occurred in California. Prior UMEs were declared in 1991, 1992, 1998, 2000 and 2002. Previous UMEs were caused by leptospirosis (1991), El Niño conditions (1992) and domoic acid toxicity (1998, 2000, 2002). To date, 57 UMEs have been formally declared in U.S. waters since 1991 (including the current UME).

            Now, it's pretty clear that humans aren't responsible for the El Nino UME, do you have evidence that we caused any or all of the others?

            Some more info on leptospirosis:


            and domioc acid toxicity:


            with plenty of references (academic work, no less).

            Your accusation of 'sales-man' is pretty ironic considering you rely on hand-waving and 'facts' that break down under the harsh light of research.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site