Fukushima is an ongoing problem

[NuclearDem]

77. I don't hate science. I hate your strawmen and failure to grasp basic concepts.

You seem to think it's all over. That is as anti-science stance as a climate denier.

Tell me where I said it's all over. I'll make it easy on you: I didn't.

On climate denial, for someone constantly bringing that up, you seem hell bent on not accepting climate change as more of a factor in the sea star deaths than radiation. In fact, you seem to have a history of attempting to link ecological troubles to radiation when there is no such link and climate change provides a better explanation.

In short: despite claiming everyone else is anti-science, you seem to be rejecting the idea of Occam's Razor quite a bit.

The condoning and attempt to whitewash the pollution from Fukushima is being a nuclear apologist.

Pointing out that your claims are erroneous and not grounded in reality is not whitewashing or condoning Fukushima pollution. It's pointing out errors in your claims.

This is called falsification. It's a key component of the scientific method.

The science isn't in and you are already deciding what has happened. And you fight and cry about any science being undertaken.

Just the opposite, in fact. I more than welcome the atmospheric data, Amchitka study, and WHOI study you've cited. They actually show that you're claims are completely ridiculous, no matter how hard you work to misrepresent them.

The atmospheric data from the monitoring stations doesn't show the East Coast getting pummeled by Fukushima radiation. It shows that sensitive equipment picked up minute traces amounting to about a 0.5 mSv increase. In no reality could that be a reason for an Atlantic sea star die off.

The Amchitka study showed that while cesium from Fukushima was present in the wildlife, the plutonium in the mussels you try linking to the Pacific sea star die off came as a result of nuclear testing at Amchitka, and was consistent with pre-2000 levels of plutonium.

The WHOI's current 2014 results for the West Coast show cesium levels at what was to be expected from Pacific nuclear testing. You citing the teaser intro line to the website (which is marketing, not science) doesn't change that.

But why stop there? Your other claims are complete nonsense as well.

You claimed the water from Fukushima is heating the ocean, and cited a satellite image that shows hot water off the coast of Japan. You were shown that the necessary energy to heat that much water to that degree would require more energy than mankind generates in a whole year, and that tectonic and volcanic activity was more likely responsible, an idea corroborated by similar heat around the Pacific Rim and in volcanic regions.

You claimed radiation was killing the sea stars in the Pacific NW. You were shown the die off starting well before the accident, and that climate change was far more likely a culprit than radiation.

You've got some strange definitions of what constitutes science. I'll give you some help though: people finding errors in your claims are not "anti-science"; in fact, consistently dismissing falsification (again, a key component of the scientific method) by claiming conspiracy or the shill gambit actually constitutes anti-science; it's a hallmark of pseudoscience.

So, in short, your claims are ridiculous, and throwing tantrums over people correcting you is not an adult way to handle a conversation.