I thought the sea star 'melting' was a problem related to acidification?

[RobertEarl]

Acidification has to do with the level of pH (potential for Hydrogen ions). pH varies at the shoreline sea star habitat, as do temperatures. The researchers are noting pH 'could' be a factor, but the variability makes it hard to pin down.

They have not yet determined why the sea star mass wasting is taking place. They do state they have no proof of radiation causing the disease. I figure it's in the food chain. Sea stars eat mussels and high levels of radioactive metals have been found in mussels.

[RobertEarl]

1. Some background

Fukushima-related radioactive materials measured across entire Northern Hemisphere

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110407121343.htm

""Since the double disaster of the 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami that affected hundreds of thousands of people and seriously damaged the Fukushima Daichi power plant in Japan on 11 March 2011, minute traces of radioactive emissions from Fukushima have spread across the entire Northern Hemisphere. A monitoring network designed to detect signs of nuclear explosions picked up these traces from the stricken power plant. To date, more than 30 radionuclide stations that are part of the International Monitoring System have provided information on the spread of radioactive particles and noble gases from the Fukushima accident.""

*************************

Point being it is adding up, this radiation

There is more and more of it in the oceans. Some previous wasting could have been because of Chernobyl and weapon testing. Pretty much anywhere in the N. Hemisphere. Those deposits could be contributors. The DoE report below details that they still find radioactive traces in the sea life from Alaska nuclear bomb tests.

Now we have Fukushima. Not only did it make deposits via air transport, but it now has been found in the NW pacific as described in another link below.

It is adding up. Spreading. The whole N. Pacific is now contaminated. Not making this up, it is all real science as linked below in follow up replies of mine.

*********************
In this report from the DOE, US government, it is described why they test for radioisotopes, where they test, when they test, and some test findings. Note the excerpted listing for plutonium found in the mussels that were tested. This finding confirms the idea that plutonium can be passed up the food chain to the starfish.

http://www.lm.doe.gov/Amchitka/Sites.aspx

Title: Department of Energy: Biological Monitoring at Amchitka Appears to Show Impacts from Fukushima Dai-ichi Incident.

The U.S. Department of Energy Office Legacy Management (LM) has a long-term stewardship mission to protect human health and the environment from the legacy of underground nuclear testing conducted at Amchitka Island, Alaska, from 1965 to 1971. Atmospheric monitoring in the United States showed elevated cesium activities shortly after the nuclear incident. LM scientists anticipated that atmospheric transport of cesium would potentially increase the cesium activities in the 2011 biological samples collected near Amchitka. Because cesium-134 has a relatively short half-life of 2 years and indicates leakage from a nuclear reactor, it is a clear indicator of a recent nuclear accident.

Because the Amchitka 2011 sampling event occurred soon after the Fukushima nuclear accident, the biota impacted by atmospheric precipitation showed the greatest impact (e.g., species that live in freshwater or shallow ocean waters) when compared to marine biota living in deeper water. This is because ocean currents are a slower transport process than wind currents. LM scientists anticipate that the marine biota will show the impacts of Fukushima during the next sampling event, currently scheduled to occur in 2016.

(One snip from report about the amounts found pg 226)

* Plutonium-239 — 4.194 pCi/kg Horse Mussel tissue

******************

Starfish facts


Diet of the starfish >> source wikipedia

Most species are generalist predators, eating microalgae, sponges, bivalves, snails and other small animals. Some species are detritivores, eating decomposing organic material and faecal matter. The crown-of-thorns starfish consumes coral polyps. The processes of feeding and capture may be aided by special parts; Pisaster brevispinus, the short-spined pisaster from the West Coast of America, can use a set of specialized tube feet to dig itself deep into the soft substrate to extract prey (usually clams). Grasping the shellfish, the starfish slowly pries open the prey's shell by wearing out its abductor muscle, and then inserts its inverted stomach into the crack to digest the soft tissues. The gap between the valves need only be a fraction of a millimeter wide for the stomach to gain entry.


*****************
Ecological impact of starfish >>>> source wikipedia

Starfish devouring mussel
Pisaster ochraceus consuming a mussel in central California

Starfish are keystone species in their respective marine communities. Their relatively large sizes, diverse diets and ability to adapt to different environments makes them ecologically important. The term "keystone species" was in fact first used by Robert Paine in 1966 to describe a starfish, Pisaster ochraceus. When studying the low intertidal coasts of Washington state, Paine found that predation by P. ochraceus was a major factor in the diversity of species. Experimental removals of this top predator from a stretch of shoreline resulted in lower species diversity and the eventual domination of Mytilus mussels, which were able to outcompete other organisms for space and resources. Similar results were found in a 1971 study of Stichaster australis on the intertidal coast of the South Island of New Zealand. S. australis was found to have removed most of a batch of transplanted mussels within two or three months of their placement, while in an area from which S. australis had been removed, the mussels increased in number dramatically, overwhelming the area and threatening biodiversity.



Survival of ocean warming and ph change for mussels

A 2009 study found that P. ochraceus is unlikely to be affected by ocean acidification as severely as other marine animals with calcareous skeletons. In other groups, structures made of calcium carbonate are vulnerable to dissolution when the pH is lowered. Researchers found that when P. ochraceus were exposed to 21 °C (70 °F) and 770 ppm carbon dioxide (beyond rises expected in the next century), they were relatively unaffected. Their survivability is likely due to the nodular nature of their skeletons, which are able to compensate for a shortage of carbonate by growing more fleshy tissue.


******************

Links and other sources

Lead Researcher: Fukushima pollution may be causing sea star epidemic on West Coast — Sea urchins, sea cucumbers also affected — “Something’s making them susceptible”… “It’s unlike anything we’ve seen”… “Populations go locally extinct overnight, literally”
http://enenews.com/lead-researcher-fukushima-pollution-a-cause-of-epidemic-wiping-out-starfish-along-west-coast-sea-urchins-and-sea-cucumbers-also-affected-something-is-making-them-susceptible-infection-it

Experts: Fukushima can’t be excluded as factor in sea stars turning to goo along West Coast; It hasn’t been ruled out — They’re “particularly proficient” at absorbing radioisotopes; 1,000 times more plutonium than fish
http://enenews.com/colonies-of-starfish-turning-to-mush-disintegrating-into-white-goo-experts-we-cant-exclude-fukushima-radiation-it-hasnt-been-ruled-out-starfish-particularly-proficient-at-absorbing-ra


*************************

Newest report of Fukushima contamination in the Pacific

This report describes how radionuclides from Fukushima were found in the water offshore in the Pacific. The report is the first to detail this fact. It goes on to say that the contamination is due to reach shore this year. And that much more sampling must be done.

http://www.pices.int/publications/presentations/PICES-2013/2013-MEQ/MEQ-1700-Smith.pdf

*************
At this site is a request for funding for more pacific research of Fukushima contamination:
http://phys.org/news/2014-01-radioactive-ocean.html

***********************

From a counter opinion site

At the following link from Deep Sea News, in the comments section, one commenter offered up some good suggestions to the scientists there.

http://deepseanews.com/2013/12/three-reasons-why-fukushima-radiation-has-nothing-to-do-with-starfish-wasting-syndrome/

*****************Quote:

Epidemiologically, are not the factors you have raised direct evidence of the impact of potassium/caesium and Calcium/Strontium ionic replacement? Four points:

1. Perhaps more so than any other sea creature, K and Ca are the critical minerals for starfish. Starfish have complex K and Ca exchange, uptake and shedding mechanisms.

2. Sr and Cs are notorious Ca and K emulators respectively.

3. A single Sr90 or Cs137 atom resident in a starfish for a few days would release enough energy to create soft tissue trauma (mutative effects inclusive). Biological response? Uptake K to attempt a heal, and more K to attempt to shed the damaged arm. Effect? More potential Cs and Sr intake. What happens when the starfish gets multiplicitous shed messages from 10-20 atomic trauma centres throughout its whole body? It melts.

3. Sr and Cs are found in trace levels in every one of the places that SWS is now occuring, and have been for a number of years now. This is as a direct consequence of the US Government nuclear policies, and its shoddy and slipshod waste management practices. Sure, Fukushima is a slow moving toxic tidal wave, and you haven’t even started to see the true effects. But the killer genie was out of the bottle years ago.

4. Go and run some tests. Get relatively pure water from the deep South Pacific, and healthy starfish from the same region. Put a sick starfish in with the healthy ones. Then try adding some radioactive isotopes at trace levels. Break the story.

***********************

The ocean ecologists are alarmed

Here is a link to a research study concerning the starfish.

http://www.eeb.ucsc.edu/pacificrockyintertidal/data-products/sea-star-wasting/

[sadoldgirl]

5. Thank you very much for your explanation.

Yes, and I am very worried as well.

[RobertEarl]

9. Thanks

Good to see someone else express care about other lives on this planet.

[quaker bill]

14. Nuclear chemistry failure

"A single Sr90 or Cs137 atom resident in a starfish for a few days would release enough energy to create soft tissue trauma (mutative effects inclusive). "

A single atom decays once. Once it decays, it is no longer Sr90 or CS137. These atoms do not sit there glowing and spewing radiation. It is a one and done sort of thing. Sometimes the decay product element then decays to another element. Many times it is just one step to something much more stable (less radioactive) sometimes it takes a couple of steps. Matter does not "want" to become stable, it is just that when it hits a stable point, it stays there for a very long time.

The decay of a single atom might do biological damage, just like a gamma ray from space, if the photon, neutron, proton, or alpha particlet hits something critical in the vast emptiness of the matter in sea star flesh. It is important to remember that these particles are very tiny and the empty space in matter is so vast that it is nearly transparent to radiation. The odds of a single atom doing anything is very very small.

[sadoldgirl]

20. I agree,

and while our immune system may kill a lot of cancer cells, it is not the best idea to test it further.
I just don't think that the total results from Yukushima are in yet, I don't think either that the Japanese
are in control of their situation.

To me - and I am not a hypochondriac - a precaution is far better than reaction. Thus all the environmental
studies seem very important, just imo.

[RobertEarl]

21. Good point?

I never heard your theory of the 'vast emptiness of the matter in sea star flesh". That's a new one. Given the energy of the rays, it seems that 'vast emptiness" is kinda like claiming that a co2 molecule would have no effect in the more vast emptiness of the atmosphere, which we know to be a denier's claim.

Then there is the fact that the heavy metal atoms themselves and their daughters can be toxic materials. So these atoms are a double blow to life processes.

[Scootaloo]

29. Trouble is, none of that would melt a starfish

Also, the killing is happening in the Atlantic, as well. strangely I've found nothing about it happening in Japan. Or the Kurils, or anywhere else in the West Pacific. it seems localized to North America.

While there is very likely some chemical component somewhere in the chain of events leading to a melted starfish (my money would be on acidification, leading to better conditions for parasites or compromised immunity on the starfish's part, rather than actual damage to the starfish through acidity), the acute cause is almost completely certain to be biological; an infectious or parasitic agent that feeds on or otherwise destroys the connective tissue that holds a starfish together.

if you had radioactive material in quantity enough to "melt" a starfish like that... everything else nearby would be melting, as well. Crabs, mollusks, fish, researchers...

It also doesn't seem to be affecting other echinoderms, that I can find. Granted, sea cucumbers, sand dollars, sea urchins, and crinoids aren't exactly charismatic or well-known.

[quaker bill]

37. All matter of any sort

is vastly empty space. Most ionizing radiation passes through it without ever hitting anything. This is why x-ray images can be taken.

A single CO2 molecule would be unlikely to have any measurable effect. However, 44 grams of CO2 contains 6.022 * 10 ^ 22 (10 to the 22 power) molecules, and thus millions or billions of metric tons will have an effect.

Given the extremely large number of atoms in your and my bodies, very likely that we each have at least one of every type of atom, half a dozen of each would not even be detectable.

[RobertEarl]

38. Then there is plutonium

Which emits actual particles. And is quite toxic even when not emitting.

You seem to know a lot about all this, so I am surprised you just pick one type of radiation. We've heard the saying that bananas radiate. That is true. But they don't make nuke power reactors from bananas, do they? No, and the reason they don't is because the stuff they make nuke reactors with are not anything like bananas or x-ray machines.

What is known is that man-made radiation is not good for natural life forms.

If you care to use your vast knowledge for the good of life on this planet, this would be a good time to start. Frankly, most of those who claim to know about all this nuke stuff only let on to just the good, and never the bad. But then we do have the Caldicots and Gorfman and Gunderson people, who do tell all sides.

So.... plutonium in someone's lung, or food. Good, or bad for life?

[Recursion]

44. What is "man-made radiation"?

Photons know how they were created?

Also, what do you mean by Plutonium emitting "actual particles"? All radiation is "actual particles".

[Recursion]

53. Sigh. Modern physics 101, lecture 3: particle/wave duality

Photons, like all other particles, exhibit characteristics of particles and waves.

Gamma rays are not particles

Gamma rays are photons, which makes them particles. Alpha rays are helium nuclei, which also makes them particles. Both are traveling fast enough that they also exhibit wave-like characteristics fairly clearly.

Also, both can be found pretty easily in nature, so I'm still not sure what you mean by "man-made".

It is most deadly when you eat it or breath it and it gets in your body and bombards nearby cells.

You've made this mistake several times before, but I want to point it out again. You are confusing the radiation itself with the radioactive matter that emits it. You can't "eat" an alpha particle because it's travelling at relativistic speeds. You can eat a substance that emits alpha particles, and that can be very bad news.

But really, seriously, if you care about this as much as you seem to, you should learn the difference between radiation and radioactive material, because this isn't the first time I've seen you mix them up like that.

[RobertEarl]

55. So, what about plutonium that makes it so deadly?

I deleted my post because you are right, I don't know nuclear physics. BFD.

So sue me.

Anyway, what happens when a sea star eats a mussel that has plutonium in it's body and the plutonium is now in the sea stars body? What does that plutonium do to the sea star?

[quaker bill]

67. Plutonium is toxic

and hs a 4 or 5 step decay to lead. It has a very long half life and is chemically toxic. Still a single atom of plutonium produces a gamma ray and perhaps a fast neutron or two at each step maybe an alpha particle at certain steps. It has been a while since I studied nuclear chemistry and I don't have the steps memorized. Particles of plutonium are a huge health concern, while very small, each will contain thousands of atoms. Living in the post nuclear bomb testing age, as we all do, I am sure that we both carry around some plutonium atoms.

I am a gainfully employed environmental scientist who enforces environmental law for a living. I do the good that I can and feel just fine about it.

[Recursion]

47. The vast majority of all matter is empty space

Otherwise your oven could only ever heat the chicken's skin.

[MineralMan]

2. This, again?

Uff da!

[RobertEarl]

3. Yep, again

The sea stars are still dying and the researchers still don't know why.

Some of us care about other lifeforms on this blue ball spinning in space.

[longship]

6. Well, it certainly isn't Fukushima.

But you've already been told that.

I don't suppose it's done any good.

You've also been told that the sea star melting began years before Fukushima event. That didn't stop you either. Nor did the fact that it's happening in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Nor did the fact that radiation levels on the West Coast are actually pretty low.

Facts just don't enter into it, do they?

Meh!

[RobertEarl]

7. No. Wrong again, lonship

How you can consistently be so wrong about this is amazing.

I posted my research, with links, and all you have is a personal attack with no links or any basis for your attack.

I have found discussion with you to be like talking to an non-energized light bulb. Cya.

[longship]

11. Projection, my friend. Projection. On your part. nt

[RobertEarl]

17. Link or slink

You have no basis for your personal attack. I, on the other hand, have supplied more than enough links. You should read post #1 again, for the first time.

[NuclearDem]

4. Well, if they haven't determined what it is, then it must be Fukushima.

[sadoldgirl]

8. Not yet,

but that wave will come. How much fish from the oceans do people eat?
It does not take but a few molecules of Sr to cause serious problems.
But who cares, right?

[NuclearDem]

10. The fish is going to kill you!

Oh wait, no it's not.

[sadoldgirl]

12. No, because I don't eat fish,

but keep it up.
Some here sound to me like Teller, who wanted to dig the Panama canal deeper with
a few nuclear bombs.

[NuclearDem]

13. Yes, because being skeptical about the nonsense claims about Fukushima

means you want to set off nuclear weapons and spread more radioactive fallout into the environment.

You really got our number.

[Scootaloo]

28. What fish? Our cats have gobbled down most of the things.

The rest get ground into a mush, pressed into a square and sold to mcDonalds.

[RobertEarl]

15. There are quite a few nuke facilities along the coast

And there was deposition from nuclear tests in the Pacific, and Chernobyl, and who knows what else.

That's what is so awful about radiation, some of it lasts for decades, even hundreds of years. It builds up in sediments and stays there.

On ENEnews.com is a recent report about how much atmospheric deposition from Fukushima explosions landed on the coast, and it was much more than a little bit. Then it rained and the runoff into the Pacific carried it to the shorelines where the sea stars live.

[NuclearDem]

16. "On ENEnews.com"

That's all you need to know.

I applaud you on an absolutely marvelous work of performance art.

[RobertEarl]

18. No response other than that?

Why do you hate science?

[NuclearDem]

19. I'll only comment if you have a link to whale.to or educate-yourself.

They might actually be better sources.

[bhikkhu]

22. I've heard more often that its related to the warming of the oceans

which allows the bacteria and viruses implicated to thrive.

As far as radiation, "We have no evidence to suggest that radiation is a likely culprit." is the current scientific consensus, from a site you linked to. Radiation is one of the easier things to track and measure, and tends to leave strong trails of evidence. I am all for more research, but the current "lack of evidence" points away from fukushima, and hopefully toward the real cause or causes.

[RobertEarl]

23. It does and it doesn't

There has been found much deposition on the coast, and some of it is easily detectable and some is very difficult and expensive to track and measure.

I have not found one research article on that site which details any examination or study of radiation. Neither in the water or in the food the sea stars eat. They do eat mussels, and the only study I have seen (detail in post #1) did find elevated levels of radiation in mussels attributable to Fukushima atmospheric deposition in Alaska.

Given that researchers are beholden to government funds and big business donors, it is not a stretch to guess that there is no funding for radiation research.

There is one organization doing offshore examinations, and a year ago they did determine that material from Fukushima had landed on the coast. And they are basically begging for money from you and me to continue.

Here's the link:

http://www.ourradioactiveocean.org/

[bhikkhu]

24. There is a good explanation of the radiation levels here:

http://deepseanews.com/2013/11/true-facts-about-ocean-radiation-and-the-fukushima-disaster/

and a very useful graphic here: http://xkcd.com/radiation/

[RobertEarl]

26. No. Not really

Note the date 2013. Over a year ago.

If you read the comments you will see DSN heavily moderates the input, and the site's output is geared to downplaying Fukushima.

ENEnews is the best real news site around with reports and details of science.

It has been estimated that over 1,000 isotopes flew up and out from the explosions at Fukushima. And there is no telling what is coming out from the groundwater flowing thru the cores and into the ocean.

In short, DSN treats Fukushima as history and not the current event it is.

[Recursion]

46. What does "over 1,000 isotopes" mean?

1000 different isotopes of different atoms? Sure, wouldn't surprise me, or worry me. I'm much less interested in the number of different isotopes than I am in how many of what kind there were, and where they went.

[RobertEarl]

56. Yes: Where did they go when they left Fukushima?

Into the air and the ocean. Into our lungs and onto our land.

[Recursion]

45. Note particularly that coal plants are three times as radioactive as nuclear plants, and living

in a brick building is far, far worse.

[RobertEarl]

57. You have a link to that?

How many coal plant explosions cause whole neighborhoods to evacuate?

[Recursion]

58. Check out Centralia, PA some time

You can't, actually, because it's on top of a coal mine fire that's been burning for decades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania

Also feel free to google for "coal plant explosion" to see a list of coal plant accidents whose death toll far exceeds Fukushima's

And the radiation emitted from coal plants is in fact greater than that emitted from nuclear plants; again, it's in the xkcd link you were given above.

[RobertEarl]

59. Plutonium from coal plants?

If you knew about plutonium you wouldn't ask what man-made radiation is.

How many people have died from Fukushima?

How many died from Chernobyl?

What type of radiation comes from coal plants?

Why do you think - ASSUME - I like and want coal plants to be in operation?
Is it you are just too hung up on being personal that you would do such a thing?

[Recursion]

60. What is your obsession with plutonium, and why do you call it "man made"?

It's not even close to the most toxic or radioactive element out there.

[RobertEarl]

61. So, you don't know much about plutonium?

That's ok, not everyone knows everything. But if you want, goggle it.

The plutonium from Fukushima that was spread around the world was man-made.

[Recursion]

62. What does "man-made plutonium" even mean?

It's a byproduct of uranium decay

[RobertEarl]

63. How much was on the planet before we started fission reactors?

Basically, man made means not natural. Is that news to you?

So, what happens to a sea star when it takes in plutonium?

[hobbit709]

66. Read up on Oklo

[bhikkhu]

25. and I fully support the research at the link you provided

there are many reasons why its important. But, to quote the site: "Models predict that radionuclides from Fukushima will begin to arrive on the West Coast in early 2014, mainly in the north (Alaska and British Columbia) and then move further south in coming years before appearing in Hawaii in small amounts. - See more at: http://www.ourradioactiveocean.org/#sthash.lOAY9bY9.dpuf".

Regardless of the amounts, which are talked about in the previous response link, how do you go from that to suggesting sea star wasting disease is due to fukushima, when the wasting disease became a big problem long before the radiation arrived? Its a recurring argument here, which seems immune to facts or science.

[RobertEarl]

27. The answer is

Atmospheric deposition. Which rain washed down into the ocean.

I don't have links, but I did follow the fact that until recently, the Oregon coast held populations of healthy sea stars. Today they don't. When I was looking at that about 4 months ago, I found that at that time in Washington, in the specific area around Hanford, had near record rains. Rains which would have washed atmospheric deposited material into the Columbia river and into the ocean. Now the sea stars in Oregon are dying off as the star's research news details.

For decades radioactive atmospheric deposition from nuclear bomb testing was found in traceable amounts in the Pacific. Which could have caused previous years sea star deaths. The DOE has been studying the effects of that on the Aleutians, as linked in post #1. Then, in 2012, they found it from Fukushima.

[bhikkhu]

34. Here's a model of the atmospheric deposition:

http://cerea.enpc.fr/en/fukushima.html

I doubt that you will bother to look up what the amounts indicated are or mean, and I doubt that you have much of an idea (in spite of an apparent obsessive interest in sea stars) of what the background levels are. Post some numbers indicating actual understanding and I'd be impressed.

[RobertEarl]

48. Tell ya what

Why don't you tell us what the amounts indicated are or mean?

Post some numbers of what you think background levels WERE before Fukushima and what they are now.

I doubt you will do anything, but one never knows. You might actually know something?

[bhikkhu]

69. Oceanic background radiation levels were about 1 to 3 bq/cubic meter

looking at cesium 137. That's from the link http://deepseanews.com/2013/11/true-facts-about-ocean-radiation-and-the-fukushima-disaster/ I posted the other day under "There is a good explanation of the radiation levels here:".

The levels are supposed to go up to 20 bq/m3 in the Pacific, according to the info on the link. Cesium is radioactive, whic means it decays into other things. Its half-life is about 30 years, so it will take awhile, but not a huge long while, for it to go back to normal.

Putting that radiation into perspective, I'll post again the same graph: http://xkcd.com/radiation/

A bequerel is a unit of measure estimating the rate of decay per volume, but a sievert is usually used as a measure of estimated "received" radiation to an object or person - the effect of that radiation. So the second graphic there uses sieverts.

Every day we receive about 10 uSv. A chest X-ray gives you about 20 uSv. A plane trip from New York to LA gives you about 40 uSv. The total radiation measured at Fukushima Town Hall for the two weeks following the incident was 100 uSv, or a little less than double the normal background levels, but also less than 1/4 of the radiation received in a mammogram.

Swimming in the ocean off of Fukushima, where the cesium contamination is most concentrated, exposed you to an additional .03% of radiation (looking at sieverts) above the normal background levels. That's slightly less dangerous than eating a banana (potassium had naturally radioactive isotopes).

[hobbit709]

30. One of these days they will prove that sea star "melting' has nothing to do with radiation

But you will still go on about Fukushima as the cause.you're as fixated on your idea as the anti-vaxxers believing the shots cause autism and who knows what else.

And as long as you cite enenews as a source no one with even half a mind will give you any credibility what so ever.

Totally unrec.

[Generic Other]

31. Here's how EneNews concluded the article

"Ian Hewson, Ph.D., Asst. Professor of Microbiology, Cornell University, Dec. 20, 2013: We’ve had a lot of questions about whether it is related to radiation from Fukushima. We can’t completely exclude that possibility, but at the same time when you examine sea stars on the Japanese side of the Pacific, they are not dying, as far as we know. And it’s very unlikely that is the source of the problem. [...] it’s probably something in the water. Something in the water could be either chemical, it could be combined chemical and biological [...] I’m very surprised when I hear about 100% death rates of any organism when you are talking about a disease. It is not in nature, for example, for a pathogen to wipe out your entire host population. [It] has to have something to survive in."

So how is this lacking credibility? They seem to have concluded that the starfish likely are not dying because of Fukushima. You talk about anti-vaxxers being fixated. What about flat-earthers?

Tiresome to hear people refuse to discuss because they prefer to be snarky.

Totally unrec.

[hobbit709]

35. I'm not the one continually blaming Fukushima.

[RobertEarl]

40. One of these days?

It as if you are saying the radiation is not and cannot be deadly. Care to expound upon that, and your future prediction?

But given that you just accused me of being and anti-vaxxer and there is no proof of me being anti-vaxx, one can see you just like to make false accusations. So.....

[hobbit709]

64. There's a big difference between saying radiation has nothing to do with the sea stars

and saying that radiation isn't dangerous. Radiation is quite dangerous.
I compared you to the mindset of evidence be damned, this is what it is.

But arguing with you is like teaching a pig to sing.

[randome]

32. Starfish facepalm.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[reddread]

33. Importantly there is no evidence at all that links the current wasting event to the ongoing disaster

Importantly there is no evidence at all that links the current wasting event to the ongoing disaster at the Fukushima nuclear facility in Japan.

http://www.eeb.ucsc.edu/pacificrockyintertidal/data-products/sea-star-wasting/

Long Marine Lab is as good a place to look at starfish as any.
keep an eye on what they have to say about it.

[RobertEarl]

41. See post #1

There is evidence there about the possible cause.

You may wish to deny it, but there it is: evidence.

[reddread]

68. I wish nothing but healthier ecosystems

I would hew to information and studied opinions coming from UCSC's Long Marine Lab.
They wont steer you wrong.
As much damage as the human race has done to our oceans, the starfish wont be the
only ones to pay.
this soup of lies we are fed feeds our distrust.
the antipathy of scoffing hyenas and the unsympathetic arrogance of worthless souls
sold so swiftly for nothing at all may be all we are left to behold.
what could be more just?

[NCTraveler]

36. Even enews is having problems finding people to write what they want.

Much of what you post these days goes against the idea this is from Fuk. It's actually nice to see the original fearmongering wasn't accurate. Even though they never backed up their claims, the thoughts were frightening. Still not out of the woods in anyway. Just time for those with the ability to think to stop going to sources they have in the past. They have outed themselves as frauds and muddied the water for actual science. Still glad to see you start backing off all of the wild claims you were making. Seeing a lot more maybe, possibly, probably not, and so forth coming from you these days. Step in the right direction.

"We’ve had a lot of questions about whether it is related to radiation from Fukushima. We can’t completely exclude that possibility, but at the same time when you examine sea stars on the Japanese side of the Pacific, they are not dying, as far as we know. And it’s very unlikely that is the source of the problem." Dr. Ian Hewson

While we clearly haven't realized the full effect of Fuk, it is clear that many outlets like enews are now realizing they cannot keep making the fabricated claims they have in the past. Most of their readership doesn't feel comfortable with the conspiracy theories and are backing down. What? Listen to actual scientists. That's crazy talk.

[RobertEarl]

39. We are not out of the woods

Given that the whole damn Fukushima plant has not 'yet' exploded and that the emissions are being washed into the ocean, the first fears of a larger calamity have been somewhat ameliorated. For now.

Just pure dumb luck that it hasn't blown sky-high? Or is it as some nuke supporters say: The Finest Hour for Nuke power.?

When looking at the big picture and seeing the really big liars with the most damaging lies, it is the nuke power supporters that are far and beyond the worst.

Bad-mouthing people who called out nuke-lies right off the bat -- and who wished nothing more than to warn others of the possibilities -- is just trash talk. Those people have been right much, much more than the nuke-liars.

We are not out of the woods yet. There is emerging science that radiation from Fukushima is altering and causing mutations in many life forms. To dismiss that science is just trash talk. It is the real crazy talk.

The actual science clearly states that man-made radiation loosed upon the environment is deadly. The people stating otherwise are the crazy ones. Of course they don't do that anymore. They are content to just attack the science in a back-handed way, much the same as some have done on this thread.

[RobertEarl]

42. North Pacific ocean is hotter than ever

Why? They are 'not sure' why the Pacific ocean is hotter then ever. Not all oceans are hotter then ever, Just the N. Pacific. Got this from weatherunderground.com - a member's post.

******************

Gov’t Scientists: “Something very unusual occurring” off west coast of US, Canada — “Unprecedented in historical record” — “Will dramatically reduce productivity” in 6,500 sq. miles of ocean — Anomaly extends “across Pacific to Japan” — “Who knows what will happen?” (MAP)

Fishletter Issue 335, July 24, 2014 (emphasis added): There is a massive pool of warm water in the Gulf of Alaska, NOAA scientist Nate Mantua said in an email. It is unprecedented in the historical record, he added… the past year is way out of the historical range — “so who knows what will happen?“

NOAA Fisheries, Sept. 2014: Scientists across NOAA Fisheries are watching a persistent expanse of exceptionally warm water spanning the Gulf of Alaska that could send reverberations through the marine food web. The warm expanse appeared about a year ago and the longer it lingers, the greater potential it has to affect ocean life… “Right now it’s super warm all the way across the Pacific to Japan,” said Bill Peterson, an oceanographer with NOAA… “it’s a very interesting time because when you see something like this that’s totally new you have opportunities to learn things you were never expecting.” Not since records began has the region of the North Pacific Ocean been so warm for so long… The situation does not match recognized patterns in ocean conditions such as El Niño Southern Oscillation or Pacific Decadal Oscillation… “It’s a strange and mixed bag out there,” Mantua said… warm temperatures are higher and cover more of the northern Pacific than the PDO typically affects… cold near-shore conditions in the Pacific Northwest also don’t match the typical PDO pattern.

North Pacific Marine Science Organization (pdf), Summer 2014: In March 2014 there was something very unusual occurring in the Northeast (NE) Pacific that might have substantial consequences for biota in the Gulf of Alaska and southward into the subtropics… we see SST departures of 4.5 standard deviations… The anomaly field covers a large region of the N.E. Pacific… The authors of this article have never seen [such] deviations… Something as extraordinary as a 4.5-sigma deviation requires corroboration… Argo data verify the very large temperature departures… and similar large deviations in salinity… the event is primarily restricted to the upper 100 metres of the water… In most years, a winter region of high productivity is created by this Ekman transport… Without nutrients from the subarctic, the productivity of subtropical waters must decline… Between 30–40°N, surface chlorophyll dropped to 60% of the average values… weakened nutrient transport from the subarctic into the subtropics this past winter will dramatically reduce the productivity of the eastern subtropics over an area of ~17,000 km² [~6,500 miles²].

[zappaman]

43. You certainly are a wealth of misinformation.

Do you purposefully just make shit up?


The study by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the California Institute of Technology, published in the journal Nature Climate Change on Monday, attributed the missed estimates to a history of poor sampling of temperatures in the southern hemisphere oceans, which make up 60 per cent of the world's oceans.
The region, which includes the Indian and South Pacific oceans as well as the South Atlantic and Southern oceans, has not been sampled nearly as frequently to date as oceans in the northern hemisphere.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/oceans-heating-up-faster-than-we-thought-study-20141005-10qgfn.html#ixzz3GHTstJJ2


http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/oceans-heating-up-faster-than-we-thought-study-20141005-10qgfn.html

[RobertEarl]

49. Sure

They have these things called satellites and they have been checking out the temps for a few decades now, and yep, the oceans are getting warmer, duh.

I see you did not respond to the science about the abnormal temps talked about in the post you replied to. Why is that? Do you purposely go off topic?

[zappaman]

50. No, I stayed on topic and called your bullshit.

Your move, Bob.

[RobertEarl]

52. No you did not.

But you did post something of interest for once.

Why are you being so rude and crude, cussing like that? You have a problem?

[zappaman]

54. DUs greatest performance artist.

That's a compliment, Bob.

[hobbit709]

65. He's not quite up there with LoZo and Random.