Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumRadiation? In The Western Part of North America All Suffering Mysterious Diseases At the Same Time
This discussion thread was locked by XemaSab (a host of the Environment & Energy group).
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/12/radiation-seals-sea-lions-polar-bears-bald-eagles-sea-stars-turtles-king-salmon-sockeye-salmon-herring-anchovies-sardines-west-coast-north-americaseals-sea-lions-polar-bears.html
Is Fukushima Decimating Wildlife in the Western Portion of North America?
Weve previous documented that seals, sea lions, polar bears, sea stars, turtles, sockeye salmon, herring, anchovies and sardines on the West Coast of North America are all suffering mysterious diseases which are killing many.
Weve asked whether this is related to massive releases of radiation from Fukushima. Update at link.
Sadly, we can now add other wildlife to the list.
EneNews reports:
Buz Marthaler, Wildlife Rehabilitation Center of Northern Utah co-founder: Its just hard to have your national bird in your arms, going through seizures in a way it cant control when you can see its pain but dont know whats happening to it. As a human being, you just have problems with that. And when you lose one, it just grabs your heart. [...] In an average year, we might get one or two, but weve received nine so far, and five of those have died. The other four are still in our care. [...] We arent ruling out anything.
***
Listen to the public news service report here: LINK AT OP
In a second article, EneNews notes:
Unfortunately, the American and Japanese governments are doing everything they can to cover up the severity of the Fukushima disaster. Indeed, anytime government or big corporations screw up, the government works to cover it up instead of actually fixing the problem. And see this AT LINK.
EneNews continues:
Islander Sound, Dec. 25, 2013: [A] dismal return of Chinook salmon to the Fraser River.
Salmon Fishing in British Columbia, Canada: There are two major salmon runs of Chinook that are targeted by anglers; the Fraser river [and] Harrison River.
December 2013: Previously unpublished map from govt scientists shows Fukushima plume already at Alaska coast (PHOTO)
November 2013: CBC Headline: Radiation from Fukushima arrives on Alaska coast University scientists concerned Is the food supply safe? I dont think anyone can really answer that
September 2013: US Govt: Alaska island appears to show impacts from Fukushima Significant cesium isotope signature detected Scientists anticipate more marine life to be impacted as ocean plume arrives (VIDEO)
CORROBORATING LINKS AT OP
kristopher
(29,798 posts)They sensationalize, distort and misrepresent information in a way that makes a mockery of a legitimate and serious problem. Is that your objective?
If you can't find solid documentation of their claims elsewhere in more legitimate media, then you shouldn't post their crap anywhere but the conspiracy theory forum.
Your cooperation in the effort to deal rationally with a serious issue would be appreciated.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)story is outside the realm of possibilities considering the enormity of the Fukushima disaster?
It's not beyond reasonable to assume if the word got out of how bad it is--it would cause the collapse of many Major Fishing Industries----not to mention the Panic-cuz this isn't just going to affect one part of the country--it's NA...
These "signals" from Mother Nature are just the Tip of whats coming. They said "back-then" it would take 3-5 years for the Plume/affects from radiation to arrive on the Eastern Pacific.
Follow the money...
kristopher
(29,798 posts)That is 100% conspiracy theory thinking. Put another way it is the same type of 'logic' that Fox News presents its viewers with. We aren't concerned with a "range of possibilities"; we are concerned with what the evidence is and what it tells us when analyzed properly.
Please stop posting this crap unless it's in the conspiracy theory forum.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)prove this is all nothing more than a "conspiracy"? What do the "conspirators" gain from spreading mis-information re: Fukushima Radiation?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)One of the favorite tactics of Hannity and Limbaugh is to put two unrelated events out there and imply a causal connection with no evidence of such a connection. And, just like the OP, they claim that all they are doing is 'asking questions'.
That is CT101.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)Confusion has been inserted into the conversation - "Absolutes" are the rule of the day? Absolutely Will be devastating Or Absolutely No Harm?
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/us-sailors-sue-radiation-poisoning-21307774
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/radioactivity_in_the_ocean_diluted_but_far_from_harmless/2391/
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Propaganda, even against dangerous energy sources, is still propaganda.
Happy New Year to you!
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)The "corroborating links" aren't even right.
For example, the first excerpt claims to be from the LA Times, but it's not; it's from the Seattle Times.
In the second article form the Washington Post there isn't any mention of Fukushima, it just says it's a mystery.
ENEnews represents itself to be a new source dedicated to energy, energy sources, generation, news about energy.
But anyone who spends any time there quickly finds that it's only purpose is to spread fear and misinformation about nuclear power.
Do a search on the site for "solar" or "wind" and it will loop you back to stories about nuclear.
Go ahead. Try it.
Nuclear power has enough factual bad news-- we don't need to mislead people to make the right energy decisions.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 31, 2013, 01:09 PM - Edit history (1)
It is so far over the top that it's hard to believe it's well intentioned by a rational person. I know that if I were a nuclear industry PR firm the creation and operation of a site like that would be the first thing I'd do to discredit legitimate opposition. We know the Nuclear Energy Institute hired Hill & Knowlton (tobacco industry fame) to manage a campaign that included creation of the greenwashing group Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy); and I see no reason to think they've limited their efforts to that single endeavor.
A Nexis news database search revealed that nearly two-thirds of news items that mentioned Christine Todd Whitman and nuclear power, from April 2006 to August 2007, failed to disclose her financial relationship with the industry. Granted, Whitman's 35.5 percent disclosure rate is better than Moore's dismal rate of 12 percent (measured from April 2006 to March 2007). That difference is at least partially due to the smaller number of articles mentioning Whitman, and the greater relative percentage of industry trade press pieces. (In both pools of stories, the trade press articles were most likely to mention the Nuclear Energy Institute's funding of CASEnergy and its co-chairs.)
In some cases, journalists may have been informed about Whitman's industry consulting but chose not to mention it in their reports. But there are several instances where Whitman herself presumably could have disclosed her Nuclear Energy Institute work, but failed to do so. These include a September 2006 television interview with Whitman, an April 2007 letter to the editor from Whitman to Iowa's Des Moines Register, and op/eds penned by Whitman that ran in the Boston Globe (May 2006), Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (September 2006), and North Carolina's Charlotte Observer (June 2007). CASEnergy press releases that named Whitman also failed to include disclosure.
Coaster distributed by NEI at an international climate change meeting
Judging by CASEnergy's website, Whitman may be increasing her pro-nuclear public outreach. Her recent radio hits include WSMN and WGIR in New Hampshire, and WJR and WDET in Detroit. All four interviews were conducted on July 11, 2007, which -- along with a WSMN host's remark that "she's spending the day talking to talk shows all over the country" and the fact that the WSMN audio file is hosted on Hill & Knowlton's website (the URL contains hillandknowlton.com) -- suggests a radio media tour organized by the Nuclear Energy Institute's PR firm. In May 2007, Whitman appeared at CASEnergy events in Florida and Washington DC. The latter was a Capitol Hill Symposium also featuring Patrick Moore, Rep. James Clyburn, the American Enterprise Institute's Ben Wattenberg, the National Association of Manufacturers' Keith McCoy, and Environmental Defense's Mark Brownstein.
Jim DiPeso of Republicans for Environmental Protection doesn't think that Whitman's speaking...
http://www.prwatch.org/node/6370
Center for Media and Democracy
longship
(40,416 posts)I've been thinking the same thing about Energy News myself. It's good to get the actual lowdown on them. The stuff on their site is loonie toons. Their sources are questionable, to say the least.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)SHOW ME THE LIE, PLEASE
FBaggins
(26,729 posts)Thanks!
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)It only makes sense the wild life is affected by the irradiated ocean waters. How can it not be affected?
Thank you for posting this, Demeter.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Dissipation occurs quickly as you move away from the source, in an exponential fashion.
If it's that toxic 4,600 miles away, then it should be 4 times as concentrated 2,300 miles, 16 times as deadly at 1,150 miles, 64 times as concentrated at 575 miles out...
256 times as bad at 288 miles, 1,024 times as powerful or more anywhere within 144 miles of Fukushima.
But I'm not reading about any horrific effects within 144 miles of Fukushima, nothing that wasn't happening before.
Below is from a National Geographic article, "Fukushima's Radioactive Water Leak: What You Should Know":
This is a murky question, because its not that easy to determine whether health problems that may not show up for decades are caused by exposure to radioactive contamination. A report released in February by the World Health Organization, which was based upon estimates of radiation exposure in the immediate wake of the accident, concluded that it probably would cause "somewhat elevated" lifetime cancer rates among the local population. But figuring out the effect of years of exposure to lower levels of radioactive contamination leaking into the ocean is an even more complicated matter.
Minoru Takata, director of the Radiation Biology Center at Kyoto University, told the Wall Street Journal that the radioactive water doesnt pose an immediate health threat unless a person goes near the damaged reactors. But over the longer term, hes concerned that the leakage could cause higher rates of cancer in Japan.
Marine scientist Buesseler believes that the leaks pose little threat to Americans, however. Radioactive contamination, he says, quickly is reduced "by many orders of magnitude" after it moves just a few miles from the original source, so that by the time it would reach the U.S. coast, the levels would be extremely low.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/08/130807-fukushima-radioactive-water-leak/
FBaggins
(26,729 posts)You do realize that we used to set off nuclear weapons in that ocean, right? No containment... no almost total limitation to iodine (long since gone) and cesium (TONS of plutonium for instance)... and we did it hundreds of times.
The amount of radiation from Fukushima reaching those parts of the Pacific is MUCH lower than the radiation that's left over from that testing and MUCH lower than the natural radiation of the ocean itself. The real questions much start with "how could it possibly be affected?"... not "how could it not?".
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)can you give me a reputable link that shows the higher radiation levels in our Pacific coastal waters and in our air that is a direct result of Fukushima?
pscot
(21,024 posts)They want us back. (from the comment thread)
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)I agree with Kris; ENENEWS is not a valid news source.
Locking.