Fukushima radioactive waters to hit US any day now

[RobertEarl]

According to this report it would take 3 years for the Fuku radioactive waters to reach the western US shores. (But we already have debris from the tsunami reaching us, so any day now.)

And given that the reactors have been and are still leaking radioactivity, the plumes will keep coming and coming. Adding up. Even if the leaks were stopped today, for 3 years we would see pollution hitting us.

http://scienceblog.com/65898/fukushima-radioactive-plume-to-reach-us-in-three-years/

At this link is the web page that article above is based on. Turn on javascript and click on map to see how water flows across the pacific, or anywhere.

http://adrift.org.au/

[mindwalker_i]

1. Cool, grab the hot dogs

We'll have a roast in water! Radioactive s'mores are next!

[uppityperson]

2. I noticed you skipped an important part of the 1st sentence: But is likely to be harmless

The radioactive ocean plume from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear plant disaster will reach the shores of the US within three years from the date of the incident but is likely to be harmless according to new paper in the journal Deep-Sea Research 1.
(clip)
“However, people on those coastlines should not be concerned as the concentration of radioactive material quickly drops below World Health Organisation safety levels as soon as it leaves Japanese waters.”

Gee, I wonder why anyone would skip these 2 sentences?

[SidDithers]

3. Can't do scaremongering and say "likely to be harmless" at the same time...nt

Sid

[Octafish]

32. When it comes to Plutonium, there can't be enough 'scaremongering.'

DOE-STD-1128-98

Guide of Good Practices for Occupational Radiological Protection in Plutonium Facilities

EXCERPT...

4.2.3 Characteristics of Plutonium Contamination

There are few characteristics of plutonium contamination that are unique. Plutonium
contamination may be in many physical and chemical forms. (See Section 2.0 for the many
potential sources of plutonium contamination from combustion products of a plutonium fire
to radiolytic products from long-term storage.) [font color="red"]The one characteristic that many believe is
unique to plutonium is its ability to migrate with no apparent motive force. Whether from
alpha recoil or some other mechanism, plutonium contamination, if not contained or
removed, will spread relatively rapidly throughout an area. [/font color]

SOURCE (PDF file format): http://www.hss.doe.gov/nuclearsafety/techstds/docs/standard/DOE-STD-1128-2008.pdf

Plutonium contamination brings death to innocent people. Why do you think telling the truth is "scaremongering," SidDithers?

[SidDithers]

33. Damn you BFEE!!...nt

Sid

[Octafish]

35. Funny how you never find anything wrong with the BFEE, SidDithers.

Bartcop coined the term "Bush Family Evil Empire" to denote the 60-year pre-eminence of one family in the formation of the political philosophy in the United States, that of the War Party. And, yes, personally, I have tried to chronicle their influence on the ascension of the national security state. At least three generations have held high national office, while also making big money off war and looting the public Treasury. The last president of the United States, a man who wasn't elected fair and square by any stretch of the imagination, actually said: "Money trumps peace" at a press conference. For some reason, not a single "journalist" had the guts to ask him what he meant by that.

So, yes. I've noticed you never seem to post anything that adds to what we know about these treasonous warmongers. I also noticed you do like to post the photo of the grinning Joker.

While the BFEE and Fukushima, plutonium and nuclear power and their impact on the world may be funny to you, they aren't funy to me.

[RobertEarl]

39. One could get the impression

That some posters here are in love with the BFEE and nuclear contamination. Of course we know only idiots would be so inclined, so we figure they are just jokers?

Meanwhile those of us who are not afraid to deal with realities end up not only having to expose the BFEE and the nuclear industry, but having to swat the jokers as well. Such is life, and you live it well, my friend.

[RobertEarl]

5. Good for you

The idea that the radiation is likely to be harmless is just asinine. Dumb.

Especially since the WHO advice is not based on practical science. Now if the WHO was really interested in practical science, they'd be taking detailed measurements of the close to 1000 different isotopes which could be entrained in the polluted water. But WHO is not doing any more observations than wishing upon a lucky star.

WHO is not on our side, They are on the side of the nuclear power industry.

[uppityperson]

7. So we are supposed to believe your link, except it is asinine? Huh?

[RobertEarl]

8. Yes the WHO is asinine

Last edited Mon Oct 14, 2013, 08:39 PM - Edit history (1)

I see you have no counter for the WHO being asinine, you just attack me, the messenger. The message is that we are about to receive the radioactive waters. Do you know what is in the water?

WHO doesn't even know what is in the water, but if they did, they ain't telling us. Here is a link to someone who has been measuring the plume.

http://www.whoi.edu/

[uppityperson]

9. Not attacking you, just trying to figure out what you mean. Your linked article says "harmless" and

"should not be concerned". Yet you seem to be trying to use this article to cause concern. Or are you saying that because the article says "harmless" and "should not be concerned", we should be concerned?

Not attacking you, just quoting from your linked article. Which says opposite from what you do.

[pintobean]

11. The messenger intentionally mangled the message

in an attempt to spread fear.

Yeah, blame the messenger.

[uppityperson]

18. Hello. Would you please answer, seeking clarification here. I won't insult or attack, just

am trying to figure out what you mean. Thank you.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3849804

[RobertEarl]

20. I answered you

I told you that the WHO's declaration of 'no concern' is not science based.

In fact, the only available science is science that says you should be concerned. This situation is unlike any other, so for WHO to claim they know what will happen is asinine.

[uppityperson]

21. Thank you. Is the Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science WHO?

I agree that this situation has not happened before and there is a lot unknown.

The radioactive ocean plume from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear plant disaster will reach the shores of the US within three years from the date of the incident but is likely to be harmless according to new paper in the journal Deep-Sea Research 1.
(clip)

In the paper, researchers from the Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science and others used a range of ocean simulations to track the path of the radiation from the Fukushima incident.

[Johnny Ready]

22. I think you have a point, that can be made by the "tainted Tuna" recall

it is hard for anyone to know exactly how the radiation will affect plant life and the food cycle in the long term both here and in Japan. It might be worth considering since it is very hard to determine the effects of the radiation, the probability of anyone sounding the alarm would be low. Mainly due to the affect on the economy as a result of panic. If we suggested California and the entire west coast is at risk and people started moving and emptying their bank accounts, the stock market would dive. This I believe is why we really don't or won't hear much about this issue unless it becomes tragic. But that does not mean the risk is low, merely not understood yet.

[RobertEarl]

23. Reality is....

Anyone who does claim that manmade radiation being allowed loose in the environment is reason for concern, soon losses government funding.

The Deep-Sea research center is not claiming they themselves have established the nuclear science, but are relying on the World Health Organization's claims. And I think we all know the WHO is not using science to make their claim.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. And here's what Woods Hole has to say:

Within months of the accident, Ken Buesseler, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), assembled a research cruise and science party of 17 people from eight institutions to sample the waters surrounding the nuclear plant. The scientists found elevated levels of the nuclear by-product cesium but they were below the threshold of concern for direct human exposure. The levels of cesium had diminished quickly off shore because cesium is soluble in seawater and was therefore diluted by the Pacific ocean currents. They also measured cesium and other radionuclides in plankton and fish and, in subsequent cruises, collected sediments from the seafloor near the plant. To this date, important fisheries off Fukushima remain closed due to levels of cesium that are above Japanese limits for seafood.

http://www.whoi.edu/main/topic/fukushima-radiation

So the levels are below concern for humans in the waters surrounding the plant. That's before they're further diluted by passage across the Pacific.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. "close to 1000 different isotopes"? List them

I guarantee you can't. Because you've only got about 100 elements to choose from, and you're not going to be able to average 10 per element. You pulled that idea out of your ass, and I suspect you may not even be able to define 'element' and 'isotope' properly.

You destroy your own credibility with such bull-shit.

[RobertEarl]

34. Thanks for bringing that up

It was really dumb of me to use that term. I know better.

What I should have written: there are over 1,000 different chemicals.

[oldhippie]

15. There is no such thing as harmless radiation .....

... in RobertEarl's world. Any radiation at all is a global disaster.

He is so over-the-top about it that he has been banned from the Environment and Energy group.

[RobertEarl]

17. My old buddy the non-hippie

Once again with the personal attacks. No science, just rabid attacks.

Here's some science for you, since I know you miss me in that backwater, dictator controlled cesspool that I am happy to have climbed out of:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/51585989-82/nuclear-radiation-scientists-bullets.html.csp

There is no 'safe' exposure to radiation

Bioaccumulation is one reason why it is dishonest to equate the danger to humans living 5,000 miles away from Japan with the minute concentrations measured in our air. If we tried, we would now likely be able to measure radioactive iodine, cesium, and strontium bioaccumulating in human embryos in this country. Pregnant women, are you OK with that?

Hermann Mueller, another Nobel Prize winner, is one of many scientists who would not have been OK with that. In a 1964 study, "Radiation and Heredity", Mueller spelled out the genetic damage of ionizing radiation on humans. He predicted the gradual reduction of the survival of the human species as exposure to radioactivity steadily increased. Indeed, sperm counts, sperm viability and fertility rates worldwide have been dropping for decades.

These scientists and their warnings have never been disproven, but they are currently widely ignored. Their message is very clear: Virtually every human on Earth carries the nuclear legacy, a genetic footprint contaminated by the Cold War, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, the 400-plus nuclear power plants that have not melted down and now Fukushima.

Albert Einstein said, "The splitting of the atom changed everything, save man's mode of thinking; thus we drift towards unparalleled catastrophe."

[oldhippie]

19. Hi, Robert, good to see you again!

Personal attack? Who, me? Did I say something inaccurate or inappropriate?

Watch out for all that radiation.

[RobertEarl]

25. Have you noticed?

That in the E&E the pro-nukers are pretty much muted? That their claims have all been shot down and they have shown to be fools and shills for the industry?

I guess I rattled someone's cage too much?

[oldhippie]

26. That's why I miss you so much over there ......

.. I always thought you were pretty funny.

I invite all over to the E&E group to see if what Robert says is true.

[RobertEarl]

28. Well, I don't find you funny

Not even the slightest bit amusing, even. But I guess I should just laugh at you?

But it is odd that you find the subject of Fukushima radiation that is spreading around the world to be something you try your best to make light of. Guess since you have your little government nest egg it is 'fuck everyone else'?

Environmentalists like myself have fought against the 'I got mine, fuck you' crowd our whole careers. And sad to say, your crowd is winning. But if there is just one person, or one animal that we can alleviate from suffering, then that means we've won something. So what do you win, as the natural world crumbles, and as you get you jollies saying fuck you?

[zappaman]

24. "He is so over-the-top about it that he has been banned from the Environment and Energy group."

LOL!
So he comes to GD and selectively edits a link to make it say what he wants it to say!

BeFree to leave out sentences that don't help your cause!

[flamingdem]

4. While it is likely to be mostly harmless, the thought of it is disgusting

and it may in the end not be mostly harmless.

That's how Tepco and others get away with it .. the damage shows over a period of decades.

[RobertEarl]

6. Recent studies of Chernobyl have uncovered science squashing

Has anyone noticed the lack of bird and insect life since Chernobyl?

The Russian scientists who did report on the wildlife decimation from Chernobyl's 'Leak' were buried by the state. Can you imagine Russia doing such a thing?

That and the reports were all paper based. Chernobyl was 1986 before the advent of large scale computer use and only recently have those paper reports been dug up. The conclusions drawn are that large scale atmospheric leaks from nuclear plant explosions are killing life on this planet.

Anyone is free to argue otherwise, but they really are just not using science.

Edited to add link about Chernobyl:

http://scienceblog.com/65744/viewing-fukushima-in-the-cold-light-of-chernobyl/

[uppityperson]

10. I am in agreement with you here.

[L0oniX]

12. So radium coated surf boards will light up a bit more than usual ...K00L

[Gravitycollapse]

13. Not all ionizing radiation is the same. Alpha and beta particles are easily shielded against.

Gamma radiation will be harder.

In order to understand the possible health consequences of these supposed plumes, we would have to know the specific elemental makeup of the radioactive material present. Then we can figure out the distribution of the three different forms of ionizing radiation present and can better consider what kind of barriers are necessary.

[RobertEarl]

14. Exactly

We need the science to be established as to just what is in the water.

A blanket statement that it is nothing to be concerned about is just plain asinine.

And one key part of that science will also tell us the toxicity of the manmade elements now reaching the coast. There are, iirc, over 1,000 elements that are generated from nuclear plant releases.

It is incumbent on science to undertake a detailed examination of this problem. Of course teabaggers and their ilk will fight such science the whole way, much as they have been in denial of global warming science.

[oldhippie]

16. I'm sure nobody has studied that yet .......

.....

[RobertEarl]

27. Haven't seen any studies yet

Tepco tho has been telling us all along that the reactors were in cold shut down. Well, that was a big fat lie. So who are we to believe?

We have heard that rain out of radiation has effected milk and seaweed, and that tuna off California have traces of cesium. And now the ocean will be carrying radioactive elements for at least 10 years.

We need to quit denying this problem and begin studying it. Heck, we denied global warming for 50 years, are we going to do the same with Fukushima radiation?

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. "over 1,000 elements"?

You better notify the Nobel prize committee. You've just overturned the history of chemistry.

[Octafish]

36. Perhaps the poster meant ''Isotopes.''

Ha ha. It is to laugh at three out-of-control meltdowns polluting the planet.

[RobertEarl]

37. I made a mistake

How ya doing, Octafish?

I don't like making mistakes and so don't mind being called out when I do. I should have just written: there are over 1,000 chemical compounds that come from nuclear reactors.

Now all of those are now in the Pacific ocean and it is no laughing matter. I am thinking that for many here this reality is just too awful to be faced and so they lash out at the nearest point of the reality which confronts them.

[Octafish]

56. Did you see this on plutonium?

Release of plutonium isotopes into the environment from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident: what is known and what needs to be known

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es402212v

Here's info in a form for non-scientist stupid people like me:

Study: High plutonium-241 activity detected over 30 kilometers from Fukushima plant — Additional research suggests “long-distance transport” of plutonium

http://enenews.com/study-high-plutonium-241-activity-detected-30-kilometers-fukushima-plant

Ha ha. It is to laugh at ignorants, eh, RobertEarl?

[RobertEarl]

58. I plead ignorance

Unlike some who plead that they know-it-all and that there is nothing to be worried about, I plead ignorance of that and state that we do need to be worried.

I just wish the teabagger types who work hard to suppress the evidence of plutonium in our atmosphere would come up with some reassurance that we've nothing to be concerned about. They have, of course, failed to do so. They have failed because, well, they can't prove plutonium et al, is good for us, just like sunshine and bananas.

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. and 'isotopes' would be wrong too

as he's now realised. That doesn't fill me with confidence that you know much about chemistry or radioactivity either. You don't help the cause of controlling the use of nuclear power with uninformed random posts that are wrong.

[Octafish]

41. True, I don't know much. I do know Fukushima's no laughing matter.

Why don't you enlighten us why?

[RobertEarl]

42. What is it with you, mv?

Why don't you educate us? All you do is sit there and swat.

Meanwhile the ocean and our air are being polluted. Yet you don't say anything about the polluters. Do you feel you are at your best attacking posters on DU and not the polluters?

I don't get it, you do seem to be such a smart person... maybe your priorities are just fucked up?

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. You haven't responded to #31

where I put up what Woods Hole, the institution you pointed out had done some measurements, said. Was that not educational for you? Here's some more from them:

Will radiation be of concern along U.S. and Canadian coasts?

Levels of any Fukushima contaminants in the ocean will be many thousands of times lower after they mix across the Pacific and arrive on the West Coast of North America some time in late 2013 or 2014. This is not to say that we should not be concerned about additional sources of radioactivity in the ocean above the natural sources, but at the levels expected even short distances from Japan, the Pacific will be safe for boating, swimming, etc.

Is debris washing ashore on the US/Canadian West Coast of concern?

Debris washed out to sea by the tsunami does not carry Fukushima radioactive contamination—I’ve measured several samples in my lab. It does, however, carry invasive species, which will be of serious concern to coastal ecosystems on the West Coast.

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83397&tid=3622&cid=94989

[RobertEarl]

48. You cover up well, mv

We know the shit is here. We just don't know how much or what the effect is. The Woods Hole people's reports are from years ago. We have no recent, no nearshore sampling, but we do have mass dieoffs of marine life along the coast. Something is going wrong, and it all adds up to Fukushima and nuclear power plant radiation.

Your efforts to cover up the evidence may be appreciated somewhere?

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. The Woods Hole FAQ was last updated Aug 2013

and you were the one pushing them as a site to pay attention to.

"we do have mass dieoffs of marine life along the coast"

Related to radiation? Link, please.

You don't know what you're talking about. You throw out random claims that you seem to have made up yourself. You accuse me of 'covering up'. Your threads are a waste of time, but someone has to point out the errors and false claims in them, so that DU doesn't look completely ridiculous, so it may as well be me. Really, it would help us a lot if you educated yourself on the subject before you post on it again. You waste too many people's time.

[RobertEarl]

52. Updated in 2013? Links to west coast sampling?

Have they sampled near to the west coast? You are using them to support your case so tell us, where is the sampling from? I used them because they are the only folks I know of that have sampled off shore. I am not aware they have sampled near to the west coast.

So..... where is this sampling you are basing your opinions on?

Have you heard about the sea lion deaths? The starfish deaths? You think these are normal? You know what's causing these abnormal mortalities?

Your personal attacks on me, while letting the polluters run free, tells us all we need to know about your priorities.

[uppityperson]

53. What I've read about the sea stars is local overpopulation leading to fast disease transmission,

recently discovered issue still being studied but no indication related to Fukishima.

[reddread]

73. is that a problem faced by Crown of Thorns?

Or are they a different kettle of starfish?

[uppityperson]

78. I mean the ones up inside BC between Vancouver Isle and mainland that are

Dying and dissolving. Sorry am on tablet and can not do much of a search for link.

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. Again, you provide no links for your random claims

Since your own OP points out the water from Fukushima is unlikely to have reached the American coast yet, samples from the west coast wouldn't prove anything. But you think this water that hasn't yet arrived has already killed off starfish and sealions, whatever its composition?

You do harm to the environmental movement, with these made-up claims. You really need to stick to reality, and not just baseless fear-mongering.

[RobertEarl]

61. Actually I claim it is already here

You sitting there saying I have not makes you look foolish. It looks as if you can't even read!!

I get that you are scared. I would suggest that you get some actual evidence behind you before you attack me. It is the polluters who are doing the real harm, not me.

[muriel_volestrangler]

66. Your title: "to hit US any day now"

You don't claim it's already here in the OP. Perhaps you've contradicted yourself somewhere in this thread, and claimed it's already here. Do you think that would give you any more credibility?

What your link says:

The radioactive ocean plume from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear plant disaster will reach the shores of the US within three years from the date of the incident but is likely to be harmless according to new paper in the journal Deep-Sea Research 1.
...
“Observers on the west coast of the United States will be able to see a measurable increase in radioactive material three years after the event,” said one of the paper’s authors, Dr Erik van Sebille.

“However, people on those coastlines should not be concerned as the concentration of radioactive material quickly drops below World Health Organisation safety levels as soon as it leaves Japanese waters.”

Two energetic currents off the Japanese coast – the Kuroshio Current and the Kurushio Extension – are primarily responsible for accelerating the dilution of the radioactive material, taking it well below WHO safety levels within four months.

What the paper says:

Following the March 2011 Fukushima disaster, large amounts of water contaminated with radionuclides, including Cesium-137, were released into the Pacific Ocean. With a half-life of 30.1 years, Cs-137 has the potential to travel large distances within the ocean. Using an ensemble of regional eddy-resolving simulations, this study investigates the long-term ventilation pathways of the leaked Cs-137 in the North Pacific Ocean. The simulations suggest that the contaminated plume would have been rapidly diluted below 10,000 Bq/m3 by the energetic Kuroshio Current and Kurushio Extension by July 2011. Based on our source function of 22 Bq/m3, which sits at the upper range of the published estimates, waters with Cs-137 concentrations >10 Bq/m3 are projected to reach the northwestern American coast and the Hawaiian archipelago by early 2014. Driven by quasi-zonal oceanic jets, shelf waters north of 45°N experience Cs-137 levels of 10–30 Bq/m3 between 2014 and 2020, while the Californian coast is projected to see lower concentrations (10–20 Bq/m3) slightly later (2016–2025).

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096706371300112X

So, that science you keep on claiming you're paying attention to says it hasn't arrived yet. You've just made up a claim that it's already done so. You've no evidence for it at all; and that's why your posts on this subject are a joke. I think you're the only person to be banned from E&E for being wilfully ignorant.

[RobertEarl]

68. We have debris from Japan

Already there are large objects from Japan on the west coast. That tells us that it is possible radiation from the nuclear power plants could be in our coastal waters. It is simple common sense.

Why deny that science? It is here. And it is only going to get worse. You have any science that claims otherwise? We'd all love to see it.

As it is.... we have never experienced such a large release from a nuclear power plant. This is all new. We need to quit denying that fact and become prepared for the consequences.

[muriel_volestrangler]

71. If you want some 'science': debris floats, so part of it is above the surface

so it is pushed by wind as well as ocean currents. Given the prevailing winds got from west to east, you'd expect the debris to arrive earlier.

I'm not denying any science; just your guesses. The science, which you linked to in your OP, says the water with raised, but not dangerous, levels of radioactivity will arrive in early 2014. So you're the one 'denying the science'. The science I 'have' is that in your own link.

[oldhippie]

60. Well said ......

You don't know what you're talking about. You throw out random claims that you seem to have made up yourself. You accuse me of 'covering up'. Your threads are a waste of time, but someone has to point out the errors and false claims in them, so that DU doesn't look completely ridiculous, so it may as well be me. Really, it would help us a lot if you educated yourself on the subject before you post on it again. You waste too many people's time.

Which is exactly why he was shown the door at the E&E group. His MO is to throw out some scary speculation, based on some half-baked info, then when called on it, to double down and throw out another talking point. He will also ask you to prove a negative.

[RobertEarl]

62. Again, oldie?

You have nothing but personal attacks. You have NO science.

You have NO relative observations here. It is all just attack the messenger.

The science says nuclear power plant radiation kills. And that we have a release of nuclear power plant radiation from Fukushima that is something we have never experienced before.

[oldhippie]

63. I'm really sorry, but ....

Every time you say "science", I

I don't really mean to personally attack you, just your rather wild ideas and statements. I actually kind of think of you as a buddy, mis-guided, perhaps, but still fun to have around. Kinda like Dobie and Maynard G. Krebs.

[RobertEarl]

65. You are no environmentalist, eh?

Every claim I have made is backed by science. And I guess is just scares the piss out of you? Because that is all I see from you: pissing. A yellow stream.

Radiation kills. We have never experienced such a large release of nuclear power plant radiation into the Pacific. We have much to be concerned about.

[oldhippie]

67. Eh?

And I suppose Bob's your uncle?

[hootinholler]

40. IDK about the releases from Fukushima...

But that link to the rubber duckie is fucking awesome!

Here's the Fukushima plastic plume. I expect the dilution would be extreme by the time it hits the gyre.

[RobertEarl]

45. That is a great app

It was built to study plastic in the ocean, so it uses mainly surface currents to build the transport maps.

But in reality, like I say in the OP, since we have already had stuff floating over from Japan, we are already getting dosed with radioactive waters. We just don't know the concentrations. And we never will unless they get over this idea that it is harmless.

[hootinholler]

50. I'm not really sure about the radioactive water

I know water becomes contaminated, but do the H2O molecules become radioactive or are there say uranium atoms mixed in? Please, I'm no chemist, what are we actually talking about?

If that is so, then the radioactive water would be heavier than ocean water and tend to sink, right? Wouldn't a surface model be largely influenced by winds?

I'm not sure that model, um, holds water in predicting deep ocean currents.

[RobertEarl]

54. Good questions, hoot

I have said all along that this situation is one big science experiment. Meaning that we are learning as we go. Problem is that our government is run by teabaggers and the nuclear industry and they sure as hell are hiding the truth from us. We have satellites that can pick up nuclear radiation but where is that science?

Instead we are left with a private firm, using plastic deposition science, to inform us about ocean currents and the approach of the plume. What we need is a public demanding our government tell us the truth. Heck, it has only taken 20 years for the government to accept global warming as a fact, I guess I may be asking too much to expect the truth about Fukushima in just 2 years?

[Baitball Blogger]

43. Maybe the starfish deaths along the Northwest coast are related to it?

[RobertEarl]

46. We need real science

Before we can get that science, we need to banish the idea that nuclear power plant radiation is as good for us as is sunshine and bananas.

Iirc, starfish are one of the few species that can regrow body parts. So there is something special already happening in their bodies. It could be that minute amounts of nuclear power plant radiation could be messing up starfish metabolism.

We need the science established. Only teabaggers would object to that, eh?

[zappaman]

47. You asking for real science is quite ironic. n/t

[Bennyboy]

51. Fukushima is here PROTESTS this weekend in SF

www.fukushimaishere.info ocean Beach, 11 AM. Not sure about the Gov't shutdown am waiting for info....

[RobertEarl]

55. Good to see, thanks bennyboy

People on the coast need to become aware. It is here and we need to know what effects it is causing. From the limited available science we have there is a call for real concern. I wished it was harmless and no cause for concern, but something tells me that such soothing words are just a cover up for the nuclear industry.

[NCTraveler]

57. And it will be harmless. Thanks for the good news. nt.

[NickB79]

64. You mean it hasn't all boiled away yet from the radioactive heat?

For anyone who thinks the OP has ANY credibility on this topic, just take a stroll through these disasters of threads:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022750608

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112741728

It's important to note that RobertEarl got called out on those threads not only by those DU'ers who generally support nuclear power, but even by those who are well-known, VERY vocal critics of nukes as well. Very telling, that.

[RobertEarl]

69. OMG. You? Again?

You have nothing. No science. The satellites show an anomaly of heated water off the coast of Japan. I did have debates on those threads and only nuke supporters debated the satellite data. And were crushed.

There was not one honest vocal critic of nukes that argued against me. Just like this thread. But the personal attacks devoid of science, like your post here, is typical of those who will do and say anything to protect the nuke industry.

We know nuclear power plant radiation kills. We know we have never had so much nuclear power plant radiation escape containment like we have from Fukushima. There is much to be concerned about.

[NickB79]

70. So, when one of the leading nuke critics on EE calls you a sockpuppet

That means what, exactly?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112741728#post40

Strawman sockpuppet

A strawman sockpuppet is a false flag pseudonym created to make a particular point of view look foolish or unwholesome in order to generate negative sentiment against it. Strawman sockpuppets typically behave in an unintelligent, uninformed, or bigoted manner and advance "straw man" arguments that their puppeteers can easily refute. The intended effect is to discredit more rational arguments made for the same position. Such sockpuppets behave in a similar manner to internet trolls.

You were saying?

Also, care to look back at the SSTA map again and tell me what you see now? Try looking at the Pacific maps from the past few months and tell me what you see.

http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/

I'm seeing a lot of blue off Japan's east coast, how bout you?

[SidDithers]

74. Crushed!!...

You had your ass handed to you in those threads. The hilarious bit is that you don't even know that.

Why did you abandon your BeFree account? You'd be able to post in E&E again if you revived it. It's still an active account.

Sid

[XemaSab]

75. Is that a fact?

[zappaman]

76. Yes

Yes, it is...

[SidDithers]

77. Well, maybe for a little while...

Sid

[RobertEarl]

80. Look who is here, it's Xema

Why not tell the crowd your reason for banning me?

I still have your email.... so I could just post it, but will give you a chance to say why.

But first why don't you tell everyone how much you support nukes? That would be some background.

[zappaman]

72. Thank you for the links!

BeFree to make things up seems to be the motto!

[Octafish]

79. You side with TEPCO and you write about another DUer's credibility?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x760038

Very telling, indeed.

[NickB79]

83. Was that response meant for me?

Because I don't recall the discussion you linked to, and my name isn't in any of the responses. Do you have the wrong link?

FWIW, I haven't sided with TEPCO for a long, long time. I gave them the benefit of the doubt for a couple of weeks after the tsunami hit, but then realized they had no fucking idea what they were doing.

[RobertEarl]

81. More bad news from the coast.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023856355

Thread title:
Sudden disappearance of sardines has serious economic and ecological effects on the B.C. coast

[flamingdem]

82. I hope that the Canadian government

starts testing, they owe it to the citizens and those who buy their fish worldwide

[NickB79]

84. Do you really think this has to do with Fukushima?

Because it's happened before, 70 years ago:

Sardines supported a major fishery on the B.C. coast in the mid-1920s to mid-1940s that averaged 40,000 tonnes a year.

Then the fish mysteriously disappeared — for decades — until the first one was observed again in 1992 during a federal science-based fishery at Barkley Sound on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

Also, it appears the sardines may not be gone, just moved to deeper waters offshore:

While seiners fishing close to the surface got skunked, he noted that commercial hake fishermen with trawl nets at depths of 200 to 350 metres reported catching hake “filled with sardines,” Clayton said.