General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsYou can ignore it all you want
But it's here.
Fukushima has increased the background radiation levels in the Pacific ocean by 600%.
Before Fukushima blew up and began dumping radiated water in the ocean, rad levels were at 1. Those levels are now above 6 and due to increase.
All kinds of sea life is being washed up on the shores of the west coast and the scientists are befuddled, and they specifically state they are not testing for radiation in the dead animals.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)They specifically say they DON'T check for radiation?
I though "scientists" were supposed to be smart.
LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)The scientists are plenty smart. But their paychecks ikely come from folks who don't want the radiation levels tested.
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)When they open their eyes.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)They've pressured the Canadian government to ban Paul Watson,a Canadian citizen, from entering the country.
Make7
(8,543 posts)[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:-1px -1px 3px #bfbfbf inset;"]... they specifically state they are not testing for radiation in the dead animals.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)The scientists who are looking after the dead sea life.
There is not one report of the pathologists looking for radiation signs.
But there are reports of them stating they are not looking for radiation signs.
Weird, right?
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)This is of grave concern, would be nice to read up on the info.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Or maybe Mangano and Sherman. They're always good for a laugh.
Sid
G_j
(40,372 posts)is there a credible source? I am befuddled by this.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)rad ocean is so out dated they even go so far as to lie about not finding Cs134, which was found. Sorry about that, I had thought theyd' be honest....
so here's the good stuff.....
http://www.vancouversun.comnews/Toxic+waters+Nuclear+radiation+found+pose+health+concerns/9606269/story.html
From:
http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=14652
F#5049
Coordinates: 41.46, -126.18
Sample Date: Aug 07, 2014 12:00
Depth: 20
Thanks to: Captain Curtis Collins, RV Point Sur, Moss Landing Marine Lab.
Cs137*: 6.4 ± 0.2Bq/m3
Cs134*: 1.7 ± 0.1Bq/m3
Make7
(8,543 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)I sure wouldn't.
Besides, just drinking a cubic meter of water in one day would kill a person.
The problem is that the sea life lives, rather, is dieing from the man made nuclear pollution, being as it lives in the slop and all its food absorbs not just cesium but a multitude of deadly material emitted from Fukushima.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)radiation is measured in units, which ones are you referencing?
Response to RobertEarl (Original post)
FBaggins This message was self-deleted by its author.
FBaggins
(26,799 posts)There is no fourth option.
Fukushima has increased the background radiation levels in the Pacific ocean by 600%.
Nope. Fukushima increased the background beta radiation (at the currently most contaminated spot off the West Coast) by a few hundredths of a percent.
So... you're only off by multiple orders of magnitude. Not your worst effort... but not exactly impressive.
All kinds of sea life is being washed up on the shores of the west coast and the scientists are befuddled, and they specifically state they are not testing for radiation in the dead animals.
That's because they're scientists... and they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there's zero chance that radiation from Fukushima killed them.
raccoon
(31,138 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Six what, Robert?
Oh dear, is this going to be fun.
MineralMan
(146,358 posts)It was a busy news day. Fukushima happened some time ago. It was bad. We get that. In the meantime, many other things are happening right now.
Panic about Fukushima now will not make it go away.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)There is no 'was' bad. It is bad and has been bad for four years and now the level of rads in the ocean off California is at 600% increase. It is getting worse since rads are long lasting.
You should not panic. You should just sit back and enjoy what is left of life. Of course it's way too late for the sea life in the Pacific.
Chemisse
(30,829 posts)But only if there is a link to scientific data and discussion.
Anybody can post numbers and opinions. You need to back them up with proof.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)The http://www.ourradioactiveocean.org/ has been sampling for cesium-137 in the Pacific. The level was 1 and now is above 7.
And more is on the way, since Fukushima is still dumping rads into the Pacific as it has been for four years now.
csziggy
(34,141 posts)Since the only semi-consistent location tested on their map are locations near Los Angeles I've taken it as a point for comparison:
2011
Coordinates: 34.25, -118.91
Sample Date: May 12, 2011 12:00
Depth: surf
Temperature: 12.9529
Salinity: 33.7037
Cs137: 1.8 ± 0.1Bq/m3
Cs134: below detection
2012
Coordinates: 32.2, -123.87
Sample Date: Oct 07, 2012 12:00
Depth: 0
Temperature: 18.7
Salinity: 33.18
Cs137: 1.7 ± 0.2Bq/m3
Cs134: below detection
2013
F# P91
Sample Type: profile
Coordinates: 31.28, -121.27
Sample Date: May 30, 2013 12:00
Depth: 38
Temperature: 15.02
Salinity: 33.37
Cs137: 1.8 ± 0.1Bq/m3
Cs134: below detection
F# P90
Sample Type: profile
Coordinates: 31.28, -121.27
Sample Date: May 30, 2013 12:00
Depth: 175
Temperature: 9.29
Salinity: 33.75
Cs137: 1.4 ± 0.1Bq/m3
Cs134: below detection
F# P89
Sample Type: profile
Coordinates: 31.28, -121.27
Sample Date: May 30, 2013 12:00
Depth: 375
Temperature: 6.84
Salinity: 34.15
Cs137: 0.9 ± 0.1Bq/m3
Cs134: below detection
2014
Coordinates: 33.49, -117.74
Sample Date: Apr 13, 2014 12:00
Cs137: 1.7 ± 0.1Bq/m3
Cs134: below detection
CS017, Santa Monica, California
Coordinates: 34.03, -118.52
Sample Date: Feb 07, 2014 12:00
Cs137: 1.4 ± 0.1Bq/m3
Cs134: below detection
All results from http://www.ourradioactiveocean.org/results.html
There is NO SAMPLE near LA that has tested "above 7" for Cs137 - over the last four years it has tested between 0.9 and 1.8, no indication of spikes. Checking results from all along the coast, I found one sample (Bodega Head in 2014) that was 2.1 ± 0.1Bq/m3 but the most recent sample is 1.1 ± 0.1Bq/m3.
Where exactly was the "above 7" reading taken? What date? Who took the sample and did the testing?
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Back when they started they even found a level of C-134 at 7 off the coast of SoCal. You had to hunt through about 10 pages to find it, but it was there. Now? hahahaha
Couple of months ago, from near Vancouver, data was presented and posted on DU LBN about C-137 level above 7.
Its here and it's only gonna get worse. Just look at all the dead and dieing sea life.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)By - Associated Press - Wednesday, April 8, 2015
VICTORIA, British Columbia (AP) - Radiation from the leaking Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor has been detected on the shores of Vancouver Island, four years after a deadly earthquake and tsunami in Japan killed 16,000 people.
University of Victoria chemical oceanographer Jay Cullen said Monday that its the first time radiation has been found on the shorelines of North America since the quake and tsunami ravaged the Japanese north coast and disabled the nuclear reactor.
Low levels of the radioactive isotope Cesium-134, which scientists say can only come from Fukushima, were found in waters collected on Feb. 19 off a dock at Ucluelet, British Columbia, about 195 miles west of Victoria, Cullen said.
Last November, the first sample containing detectable radioactivity from Fukushima was discovered about 90 miles off the coast of northern California.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/8/japanese-reactor-radiation-detected-off-bc-coast/
...........................
My memory was that a level 7 found, was Cs137.
Note that this report says they found Cs134, which the rad ocean link does NOT report. Which goes to show the rad ocean site is hiding something. I figured the rad ocean people by now would be reporting up to date data, but it is not. My bad for trusting them and using them as a source, because even the AP is a better source than them.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)FBaggins
(26,799 posts)You're really not being fair with your standard of proof.
csziggy
(34,141 posts)Then I agree with the other posters. Bull fucking shit.
Have a nice life.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Here's the location and date and data
F# UCSB-1
Date Mar 22, 2011 03:00
depth: surf
Cs137: 7.3
Cs134: 7.4
---------
If you care you can search for it but it has probably been scrubbed...??
I looked for the LBN post... no luck. Then I looked at another site and it wouldn't load. On that site was data that showed, well offshore, a level of close to 20 of Cs137. It's coming.
FBaggins
(26,799 posts)It's still there... you're just missing that that's from just a couple weeks after the explosions - when airborne contamination had just arrived, but before it diluted away (as shown by the most recent reading from the same area).
We had a convo about this a while back. Thanks for the confirmation that I am accurate about the deposition.
Lots of folks have ignored the fact that there was a lot of airborne deposition from the cores exploding and spreading around the world. But there is proof of the core material landing on the US. Thanks for backing me up!!
applegrove
(118,965 posts)a die off of all aquatic life, up the west coast. Caused by global climate change. So it could be more of that.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)the Gulf disaster too.
We can thank Obama for allowing Corexit to be used there. Killing multitudes of sea animals.
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)since at least 1978 when I saw them covering the beaches in WA and OR? These are the ones the omgpress is calling "alien sea creatures" and while they don't wash up regularly, they have been doing this for for 30 years that I know of personally.
Or do you mean sea lion pup starving due to warm waters causing lack of prey?
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/13/3633743/sea-lion-pups-washing-ashore/