Reports: Sea stars decimated on West Coast — SoCal ravaged as mystery disease spreads south; Saw hundreds last year, now none… got hit really hard — Mortality event like this never before documented — “Uncharted waters… likes of which we haven’t seen” — Turning to ‘bacterial goop’ (RADIO)

Published: April 5th, 2014 at 2:21 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
158 comments


KPCC (Southern California), Apr. 3, 2014: A mysterious disease that has been killing massive numbers of sea stars along the West Coast is now firmly entrenched in Southern California [...] causing some species to disintegrate and liquify into bacterial goop [...] in populations stretching up into Alaska. [...] Jayson Smith, a marine conservation ecologist at Cal Poly Pomona [...] found 11 sea stars, four of which were exhibiting signs of infection [...] the low numbers were actually a welcome sight. “[...] it is positive sign that there are some here, because that’s more than I’ve seen in other places,” [...] Smith and his crew found no sea stars at Shaws Cove, a spot where they had previously counted about 400. As bleak as the widespread die-offs have been, some researchers are excited by the research opportunity [...]

  • Pete Raimondi, UC Santa Cruz, leading research effort: “Other than perhaps some of the islands, where it hasn’t ravaged yet, it’s pretty clearly throughout So. Calif. [...] in uncharted waters in lots of ways. [...] a disease the likes of which we haven’t seen before, meaning the spatial extent and the movement from north to south.
  • Ian Hewson, Cornell University: “They’d been in captivity for 30 years, and they died in the space of about 24 hours. [...] very difficult to say when we’ll have a definitive answer.”

Coast Weekend, Apr. 4, 2014: Sea stars along much of the Pacific coast of North America are experiencing mass mortality [...] a mortality event of this magnitude, with such broad geographic reach, has never before been documented.

The Coast News, Apr. 3, 2014 (emphasis added): [It's] decimated populations up north, and it recently hit San Diego [...] Sea stars along the West Coast are dying en masse. [...] “San Diego is just now starting to get hit; the Channel Islands are just now getting hit as well,” said Pete Raimondi [...] he expects the disease to keep marching south. [It's] occurred several times [before, but] associated with El Nino causing warm waters [...] Yet we’re currently not in an El Nino. Plus, during past events, the disease moved up the coast with nearshore currents. “That’s very difficult for us to get our heads around, because it’s not a classic movement pattern,” Raimondi said. [...] Raimondi said it’s likely something is making the sea stars susceptible to secondary infection from a pathogen or virus. [...] Fukushima radiation is extremely unlikely; radiation hasn’t registered above ambient levels.

KPCC Transcript, Apr. 3, 2014:

  • 0:45 in — –Jayson Smith of Cal Poly: “We’ve gone from hundreds to zeroes really quickly [...] We actually thought we were going to escape it [...] we got hit really hit and we lost probably 95% of our sea stars.”
  • 1:45 in — It could be bacterial, viral, environmental, or some combination.
  • 2:00 in — History is no help [...] [a] die off was tied to warmer waters of an El Nino [...] there’s been no El Nino for years.
  • 2:15 in: “It’s amazing [...] a geographic scope that is unprecedented.” –Pete Raimondi, UC Santa Cruz […]
  • 2:30 in — A rare chance to see what happens when an ecosystem loses it’s main predator.

Full KPCC broadcast here

Published: April 5th, 2014 at 2:21 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
158 comments

Related Posts

  1. Experts: Seemingly benign virus on West Coast causing “ecological upheaval the likes of which we’ve never seen” — Very peculiar, different from all known viruses — Mutations could be helping it spread — Something may have recently caused it to go rogue… we’ve never seen anything like this — Why now, what changed to allow outbreak? (VIDEO) November 18, 2014
  2. PBS Reporter Miles O’Brien: “No one likes to see ocean filled with cesium and strontium and so forth” — It’s arriving on West Coast of U.S. as we speak — “Nobody likes the idea of eating cesium from Fukushima” — “Tainted water dumped into Pacific as we speak” (AUDIO) April 25, 2014
  3. 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 (AUDIO) December 28, 2013
  4. TV: “The largest disease outbreak that we know of ever in the oceans” now hitting West Coast — Potential for “global extinction” — “Affects over 20 species… causing catastrophic mortality” — Expert: One of history’s largest wildlife die-offs… signal in ecosystem that something’s not right (VIDEO) June 16, 2014
  5. Experts: Disease explosion in West Coast sea stars — “Extinction event” is pretty close — “Epidemic of historic magnitude… threatens to decimate entire population” of species in Oregon — Sudden 50-fold increase in recent weeks — Entire ecosystem could be disrupted — “We have no clue” (VIDEO) June 11, 2014

158 comments to Reports: Sea stars decimated on West Coast — SoCal ravaged as mystery disease spreads south; Saw hundreds last year, now none… got hit really hard — Mortality event like this never before documented — “Uncharted waters… likes of which we haven’t seen” — Turning to ‘bacterial goop’ (RADIO)

  • Ontological Ontological

    Correct El Nino is not the cause. Acidic water most likely is on top of degraded plastic ooze, tsunami trash, and radioactive discharge. The viruses are running unchecked in the oceans as well as in the air, & on land.


    Report comment

  • Crickets Crickets

    As our generation dies off, what a shameful legacy we leave behind.


    Report comment

    • Crickets Crickets

      When I say "generation," I mean the consumer generation. It probably actually spans a number of true generations. Having been born in California in the '50's, and raised here, I have an emotional connection to the stories of marine life being over-fished, over-used, over-abused. As a child, I remember in elementary school we used to take field trips to the tide pools in Southern California. At 5 years old, my classmates and I marveling at the starfish, abalone, hermit crabs, mussles and other abundant creatures that lived amid the rocks along the shore. What a pity that we're destroying such a treasure. Shame, shame, shame! Sorry, sometimes emotion gets the better of all of us…


      Report comment

  • zogerke zogerke

    'Radiation has not registered above ambient levels'
    What does that mean? Ambient pre fuku or after? Ambient when it is all contaminated already? What and when is that metric connected to?


    Report comment

  • YukonRadiation YukonRadiation

    Acidic ocean water ? i wonder does this travel or does it stay in one area? the amount of plastic in the sea is very surreal? but WE did it! Ambient levels? i guess this means they are now testing for radiation, this is a start? but which isotopes would they have tested for?
    I have heard of a very good herring season this year off Vancouver island, this is not what i thought would this year? so what to believe , it's bad or it's all in our heads? i hate this and i guess it is just time either way! i hope we have all been watching a bad movie !


    Report comment

    • Ontological Ontological

      The acid levels of today are greater than they were the last acidic ELE. 300 m years ago.

      http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/03/ocean-acidification-carbon-dioxide-emissions-levels


      Report comment

        • name999 name999

          dr, a critical point, thank you for repeating this.


          Report comment

        • Bay Area Guy 2

          This is my first post here. I appreciate the information that folks have been posting about Fukushima. I have been trying to warn family and friends about the dangers of going to Japan, but those warnings have fallen on deaf ears for the most part.

          I wanted to comment about the whole global warming/climate change debate. I'm not going to pretend that I understand the science behind this issue. However, I have to think that when we introduce as much crap as we introduce into what is essentially a closed ecosystem, there HAS to be a consequence. Now, what those consequences are is beyond my pay grade, but I know there must be something. To deny that there is any impact as far too many conservative groups seem to want to do is simply foolish. I count myself as being libertarian in most regards, but I do see a need to regulate industry in terms of the output of noxious materials. China is a perfect example of complete deregulation of industry. Anyone who has been to China (and I have been multiple times) can attest that industry left unchecked has disastrous results on the ecosystem. Lets put some common sense regulations in place that protect the environment.


          Report comment

      • humptydumpty

        I find it inconceivable that acidification is the cause of the die-offs. As I have suggested before, marine organisms' sensitivity to and morbidity due to ocean acidification certainly has been tested in the laboratory, in order to determine whether a threshold exists. The fact that biologists are completely baffled by this and many other ocean/coastal die-offs, tells me there is another cause not in evidence and not accounted for.

        There is reason and precedent to believe significant evidence of radiation exposure has been suppressed, which would fit the pattern of obfuscation by government agencies and by institutions dependent on corporate and/or government funding. All of these agencies and institutions need to "come clean" by pursuing exhaustive testing for radioisotopes in marine organisms and also land-based ones, with honest and open publication of the data.


        Report comment

        • 16Penny 16Penny

          We may never be able to reassemble the whole egg but you put that piece together very nicely. If it was as simple as a viral outbreak or ocean acidification, no fumbling around with " A rare chance to see what happens when an ecosystem loses it’s main predator."

          If this is just like prior die offs then where is the evidence? Where are the pictures and first hand accounts from before of melting sea stars? They don't exist on the internet as far as I have searched and I have put a good 8 hours in to looking through pictures, scholarly articles and news stories. Nothing compares closely to what is being reported. My BS detector is waking up the neighborhood.


          Report comment

          • HoTaters

            16Penny, the die-offs are likely due to a combination of factors. But the presence of very high levels of radiation in N. American west coast kelp beds is undeniable evidence of exposure of sea life to large amounts of radiation. Certainly in the first six months after 3/11, likely ongoing ….


            Report comment

  • Homo Insapiens Homo Insapiens

    "As bleak as the widespread die-offs have been, some researchers are excited by the research opportunity"

    Exciting die-off!
    My research grant got approved
    Oops. There are none left.


    Report comment

  • Rufus

    Sea star exoskeletons are made primarily of calcium carbonate.
    Replace some calcium with cesium, forming cesium carbonate, and it will dissolve in sea water.
    Or is this too simplistic an answer?


    Report comment

  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture

    NUCLEAR RUINING THE WORLD . . .

    Starfish gone extinct, sick seals, radiated tuna, North America is in trouble folks.


    Report comment

  • We Not They Finally

    OBVIOUSLY, they need to now look at is what the sea stars feed off of, and what feeds off of THEM. It's an interconnected eco-system. Or is it that the public only finds out about bio-accumulation and bio-magnification when there is nothing left? Oh, they'll be told SOMETHING anyway — baffling, mysterious, puzzling….


    Report comment

    • 16Penny 16Penny

      They prey heavily on shellfish, clams and mussels. Those of course are filter feeders which would be very efficient at bio-accumulating whatever isotopes are floating by. They have been having it pretty rough too. I can't find the article but I remember reading recently about a shellfish farm that was experiencing problems with their operations. Something like 95 to 100% mortality on their seeding operations, everything dying off shortly after being placed in the water.

      Here is an article that pins it on ocean acidification. Not sure I buy it but there was a very interesting quote:

      "The oysters were not dissolving. They were dying because the corrosive water forced the young animals to use too much energy. Acidification had robbed the water of important minerals, so the oysters worked far harder to extract what they needed to build their shells."

      I'll post it if I can find the recent news article.


      Report comment

  • We Not They Finally

    Someone more scientific than me can chew on this:

    WHERE are they testing for radioactivity in the ocean? On the surface? Apparently, uranium does not float, it sinks. Then it (and plutonium!) bio-accumulate in the plankton and progressively poison the food chain from the bottom up.

    My understanding is that that is what turned Chris Busby around, since it thought the Pacific Ocean is such a huge place, that the radiation would "dilute." Then when he saw studies of massive numbers of sea creatures dead on the FLOOR of the ocean, he realized that aerosolized uranium and plutonium had SUNK, giving poisoning from the seabed up.

    If you don't test in the right place, you won't get the right answer!


    Report comment

  • tsfw tsfw

    Starfish pump seawater through their circulatory systems rather than blood. Perhaps this is one of the factors that have led to their rapid downfall?


    Report comment

  • weeman

    2:30 in — A rare chance to see what happens when an ecosystem loses it’s main predator, mankind?


    Report comment

  • dka

    look at sea star food sources.
    How about their radiation levels?
    How about radiation levels of dying sea stars vs. healthy ones outside the areas which received plums from initial clouds following the explosions?

    "Fukushima radiation is extremely unlikely; radiation hasn’t registered above ambient levels"
    which measurement is he talking about?
    There have been plenty of measurement showing exactly the opposite.


    Report comment

    • Ontological Ontological

      Sea stars eat barnacles, snails, urchins, limpets, sponges and sea anemones, a few other like chitons, rock-dwelling marine mollusks. I would suspect acidity right now as the main culprit causing things like cesium carbonate, cesium chloride (highly acidic) breakdown. A look into the health of these food sources is certainly in order.


      Report comment

  • aunavoz

    The documentation of acidification of water on shell based creatures is widely accepted. This is science.

    Not all things tragic today are from Fukushima. "Ambient" and "background" radiation are generally interchangeable. This means acceptable and normal. In order for scientists to rate radiation as ambient it means they have measured it.

    But yes I realize this is Enenews so there is no scientist or radiation test considered reliable. They "are all lying scum."

    However, the carbon pollution may actually be more dire than any threat from Fuku.

    Or perhaps we have actually created a dual edged sword in both. Stay tuned. Which one kills us first. I will bow out from that discussion here.

    And by the way cesium carbonate makes for better solar cells! Just a little thing I. Saw while googling.

    Enenew's online negative reviews remark how the followers here always jump on every animal die off as related to Fukushima. Or something like that.


    Report comment

    • VanneV VanneV

      Nuclear power plants cause acidification of the ocean. Nuclear power plants in the whole fuel cycle rely on fossil fuels more than the energy they produce. Nuclear power plants are thus big time carbon polluters. The heat from radioactive decay caused by nuclear power plants is the biggest contributor of global warming.


      Report comment

      • zogerke zogerke

        see below…yawn. yawn. yawn…. one sleepy voice buzzing around like a fruitfly,
        a dropsilla
        trying to corrode
        those who negate
        the pluzilla producers

        like a big housefly, the dropsilla, very far grown from its drosophila cousins….bizzing around annoying people


        Report comment

    • m a x l i

      "And by the way cesium carbonate makes for better solar cells!"

      Trying to compare apples and pears? That would be stable Cs-133, while the fission products in question from nuclear reactors would be unstable, hence radioactive, Cs-134, Cs-135 and Cs-137.

      It's like with iodine: Stable I-127 is part of a healthy diet, while decaying I-131, produced in nuclear reactors, damages our thyroid gland.


      Report comment

  • aunavoz

    Sure Mr VanneV. This is the expected response here (although you are a lone voice so far.)

    Instead of the unsubstantiated dogma here would you please provide some established studies' links to your claim.

    Unaccetable are global whatever.ca; before its news; above top secret; rense; etc. Please. Something peer reviewed would be nice.

    And provide links to the opposing statement showing it is weaker.

    You can't. But it won't matter anyway actually. This is afterall Enenews and only one side of the argument is permitted.

    So I won't hold my breath and Newsers will be delighted that you have supported their dogma.


    Report comment

  • VanneV VanneV

    Oops.

    Town Loves Nuclear Waste Dump
    C A R L S B A D, N.M., Nov. xxx
    http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129987


    Report comment

  • califnative califnative (NY)

    Bravo folks, hopefully you scared off the little Troll or maybe it's past his bedtime.

    Vamoose a una voz!


    Report comment

    • Gasser Gasser

      GLEN CAMPBELL
      "Wichita Lineman"

      Go here first to gist in the rhythm

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Sn0QZBFAhw0

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~

      There are Shillmen for Pro Nuker's~~~they search the web's road

      Searchin' in there smoky cubicles~~~for truths heavy load.

      
You hear them lying through the wires, you can hear them by their repetitive whine

      And the Witches lying men~~~are puke Shill's on the line.

      I know they need a knockout vacation~~~they don't have a brain

      And when it snows Actinides in their parking lot~~~they won't stand the Radioactive strain.

      
And they need us more than want us~~~and need the truth for all time

      And the Witches lying men~~~are puke Shill's on the line.

      I am a poster on enenews~~~and I search it's posting load

      Searchin' for another~~~Pro Nuke bullshiter overload

      And 'll piss'em off more than they like~~~and I'll do it for all time
      
And the Witches lying men~~~will get bumped off the line

      ~Gasser Classic~


      Report comment

  • Sol Man

    Are they measuring for alpha?


    Report comment

  • Hello Everyone

    The marine scientists will continue to be uncertain about the cause of mass animal mortality events for many reasons. Most of all, their models of radiation effects fail to address bioaccumulation, immune suppression, and reproductive effects.

    The thing to keep in mind is that radiation accelerates aging, especially beta and alpha particles. Their 'tracks' across living tissue are savage.

    Unfortunately, we will witness many more mass mortality events in the Pacific Ocean and perhaps much more widely. No one knows for sure but the pattern is not looking optimistic:

    http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2013/10/animal-anomalies-is-fukushima-daiichi.html

    It is also quite unfortunate that our lame 'leaders' remain distracted by artificial representations of reality that cloud their thinking about what is REALLY happening at Fukushima and nuclear sites around the world.

    The UNSCEAR report is a very good example of clouded expert thinking:

    http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/unbelievable-denial.html

    The eco-system was in trouble before Fukushima. Now what?


    Report comment

    • vital1 vital1

      Well the situation in the Pacific Ocean looks like getting worse. Tepco plans to discharge pumped groundwater to the sea this coming June

      Extracts:

      The pumped groundwater contains significant level of radiation as well, however it would not be filtered before discharging. (cf, [Coincidence ?] 3 highest densities of Tritium are “exactly 1,200,000 Bq/m3″ in groundwater bypass.

      Comment:

      There should be an international effort to stop this from happening. At present there is a lot of Nuclear industry propaganda making out that Tritium is harmless. This video brings up a lot of independent research on the biological effects radioactive Tritium releases. That Tritium is something to be very concerned about. It is not just large amounts of Tritium that will be released into the Pacific Ocean!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf4G0NRBfqY

      Article:

      http://fukushima-diary.com/2014/04/tepco-plans-to-discharge-pumped-groundwater-to-the-sea-this-coming-june


      Report comment

      • Yes the nuke industry pushes its propaganda about tritium being harmless, when its NOT, because every reactor on the planet is leaking tritium into the atmosphere.

        Tritium is especially dangerous because it binds with oxygen to make 'radioactive' water droplets that can me ingested and, even, penetrate skin.

        Tritium is a beta emitter. Beta particles – high speed electrons and positrons – tear living tissue with their energy tracks.


        Report comment

        • bo bo

          One common way people shove tritium aside I've noticed is saying 'oh, tritium, you don't have to worry about THAT, half life is only 8 days… so it's negligible! '

          1. When an isotope decays fast, it releases much more harmful energy in that short amount of time – so shorter half life can mean more danger packed in that exposure ( correct me if I am wrong )

          2. I still don't fully comprehend this but it's only one type of tritium that has a shorter half life ( and I suspect the industry purposefully focuses on just that ?)
          Other types stay in the environment for 120 years… ok, my knowledge is a bit hazy again. Mack…vital1… if anybody can clarify this fuzzy area please do.


          Report comment

          • m a x l i

            @bo, you are right about 1. When you compare two substances; in the beginning you have two probes with the same number of atoms each; substance A has the shorter half-life; substance B has the longer half-life: x-times as long as A===>Then in any given short* time A produces x-times more decay events than B. (*Only true if your observation time is much shorter than both half-lives.) More atoms decaying per time means, as rule of thumb, more energy released per time, thus more destructive force per time.

            In your example there is a mix-up. Iodine-131 has a half-life of 8 days.
            Tritium is on of three forms (or "isotopes") of hydrogen. For half-lives of those hydrogen isotopes look here:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen
            In the right column of tables go down to the end where it says "Most stable isotopes". There you find out:
            ——————————
            H-1 "hydrogen"* stable
            H-2 deuterium stable
            H-3 tritium half-life 12.32 years
            ——————————
            *Formally "protium", but everyone calls this isotope "hydrogen", which actually is the name for all three isotopes together.

            I hope that was not too confusing. You are asking all the right questions and in time, I am sure, you will find out what you want to know.


            Report comment

            • m a x l i

              For anyone having similar questions like you, possibly this could be helpful: A few concepts of physics explained in very short form:
              http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
              Click on the elliptical shape where it says "Nuclear Physics"!


              Report comment

            • bo bo

              Maxli – thank you for helping me as I hobble through the periodic chart…lol
              That asterisk about hydrogen actually being a name to describe all H1 ( protium ) H2 ( deutrium) and H3 ( tritium) is very interesting. So what we normally call 'hydrogen' should really be called 'protium' – to avoid confusion. ( hmmmmm…confusion by design ?)

              I've had trolls and real life 'know-it-alls' throw this at me in the past:

              'Oh, tritium – that's just Hydrogen!'

              And I was confused about it, now I have some padding, and a comeback.


              Report comment

              • bo bo

                Oh – and I went back to sort out where I got the number '120 years'

                That was a document on tritium from beyondnuclear.org -

                It stated that isotopes remain dangerous for 10 to 20 times more than its 'half life' – therefore, tritium remains hazardous to the environment for at least 120 years.


                Report comment

              • m a x l i

                @bo, hydrogen is the name of the chemical element H which occurs as a mix of the isotopes H-1 and H-2 (and H-3, but H-3 is almost non-existent on earth, unless we produce it; naturally only very small traces of H-3 are produced when cosmic radiation hits the atmosphere).
                H-1 makes up 99.985% of our hydrogen.
                H-2 makes up 00.015% of our hydrogen.*
                That's why it makes sense to call the isotope H-1 hydrogen, because H consists mostly of H-1, whereas H-2 is negligible, let alone H-3.
                (* You find those numbers in the already linked Wikipedia entry under "Most stable isotopes" and there under "NA"=natural abundance. And watch the correct spelling of deuterium!)

                Now to that 10 times half-life rule: This is a rule of thumb, where you can say that after 10 times the half-life of a radioactive isotope went by, ALMOST all of it disappeared. (Well, it didn't really disappear, but transformed into something else, which itself could be stable or could, again, be radioactive.)
                It goes like this: Half-live is the time, in which half of the atoms of a given amount of an isotope transformed/"decayed" into something else.
                Start with 1 kilogram and look how much remains after 1 half-life, after 2 half-lives, and so on:
                Start: 1kg
                1 half-life: 500g
                2 half-lives: 250g
                3 half-lives: 125g
                4 half-lives: 62.5g
                ……………………….
                10 half-lives: approximately 1g.

                Continued ===>


                Report comment

                • m a x l i

                  Now it becomes clear that the phrase "almost all of it disappeared" means that one thousandth of it is still there. Therefore the 10 times half-life rule of thumb only makes sense for very small amounts of a substance, for instance when you spilled only milligrams of something in a laboratory. It certainly is not applicable, when you are dealing with tons of stuff. Think of a ton of plutonium! You don't want to come across that stuff, when there is still one kilogram of it present. For kilograms or tons you need a 20 times or 30 times rule or even higher. The shills don't know this. You can impress them. They like to use the 10 times rule for every occasion.
                  ————————————
                  10 times half life: 1 thousandth is remaining
                  20 times half life: 1 millionth is remaining
                  30 times half life: 1 billionth is remaining
                  40 times half life: 1 trillionth is remaining
                  ————————————

                  Continued ===>


                  Report comment

                  • m a x l i

                    Now to that "biological half-life of tritium of 10 days". I don't know where that comes from. I doubt that it could be correct.

                    Hydrogen (all forms H-1, H-2 and H-3, which behave all the same chemically) has a tendency not to exist on it's own but likes to bond to molecules with other elements. So, it forms, together with oxygen, water. Plants use that water plus CO2 from the air plus some more elements out of the ground and construct all kinds of small and large, simple and complicated molecules out of it – the building blocks of life. Animals eat those plants, reuse those building blocks. That means to me: If we put Tritium into our environment, it will not only be in the water, which makes up a big part of our body weight, but it can be found here and there in all molecules which our body is made of. With a half-life of 12 years it stays there for awhile. Every time one tritium atom decays (it becomes stable helium He-3), then our body does not only get hit by the released radiation, but there might be a hydrogen atom missing in a molecule, the functionality of that molecule might be lost. (Try to remove the door or the roof of a house; it's not a house anymore.)

                    A "biological half-life of tritium of 10 days" could only make sense if the complete substance of our body would be continuously disassembled, replaced and reassembled in a matter of days. I doubt that is the case, but do not mind to be corrected.


                    Report comment

                    • bo bo

                      Maxli, thank you for this.
                      Half life cheat sheet….wow….
                      if you think about Hanford releasing 300 lbs of uranium (half life 4.5 billion years) directly into the Columbia River …. annually.
                      :O

                      I'm imagining H3 molecules that enters biological organisms, including human bodies, turning into helium balloons and leaving them after 12 years..
                      I'm sure that's not how it goes down, but this will help me remember what you describe here.

                      This is a totally crude crackpot guess but I wonder if this is why it took around 12 years for leukemia cases to start showing up in Hiroshima…. or is that apples and oranges.


                      Report comment

                    • bo bo

                      It is an interesting point, about H3 that mimics H1, that as it decays and leaves the body, it not only hurts the body with the radiation in the process, but destroys the body by leaving holes where that Hydrogen atom was.

                      The analogy of the roof collapsing without the support is helpful.

                      'Biological half life' of tritium – I'm looking for that chart, I read it in one of the PDF s that mack gave me… will let you know when I find it


                      Report comment

                    • bo bo

                      Ooooh and I'm re-reading the tritium informational after your explanation, and it makes so much sense what they're trying to say now -

                      When a pregnant woman is exposed to tritium ( H3), that instable Hydrogen atom becomes incorporated into creating the DNA molecule of the fetus!

                      Imagine H3 atoms being part of your DNA instead of H1… and those atoms leaving your DNA like helium balloons after 12 years…imagine what THAT does.


                      Report comment

                    • bo bo

                      'Effective biological half life of tritium in humans- 10 days'

                      I am having trouble linking the PDF -

                      Google:
                      Public Health Guidelines for Tritium in Drinking water california 2006

                      Mentioned on the chart on page 4 of this document


                      Report comment

                    • m a x l i

                      Radioactive decay doesn't wait for 12 years. It starts immediately. Unstable atoms decay at random times. Some sorts of isotopes are in a hurry. Others are slow like snails. Half-lives can be anything from milliseconds (that's why we never come into contact with many of the approximately 1200 different isotopes that are produced in a reactor) to billions of years.

                      Tritium has a half life of 12 years. That means, when you find a single tritium atom somewhere, stuff it in a jar, screw a lid on it and after 12 years you go looking what the jar is doing, the tritium atom has a fifty-fifty chance to be still alive. In other words, you have a fifty-fifty chance to find a helium atom instead.

                      If the tritium is still there, you can put the jar back into the cup bord and repeat the experiment. After additional 12 years you, again, have the same 50/50 chance of finding either H-3 or He-3. Normal human thinking might suspect, that in the follow-up experiment it will hurry up decaying because it is already old. But that's not how it works. The atom does not "remember" that it had a history. It does not get old. Atoms stay young all their live until the sudden and unexpected death.


                      Report comment

                    • bo bo

                      EUREKA on what 'half life' means !!!
                      This is amazing explanation and great writing, thank you maxli :)


                      Report comment

                    • m a x l i

                      Yes… those 10 days. I had a quick look at some other paper and was under the impression that they pick out only the water you are drinking and push all the other trouble under the carpet in order to make it look as harmless as possible. Maybe I will have a second look later. See you later!


                      Report comment

                    • m a x l i

                      Thanks for your compliments, bo! Maybe I should write a book "Nuclear physics for emphatic humans".


                      Report comment

                    • bo bo

                      maxli – I wish there was something like an ipad book, like rosetta stone type thing, tons of visuals and question and answer type thing, one question per page, that teaches nuclear science

                      You can write, I'll draw! :)


                      Report comment

                    • m a x l i

                      rosetta stone type thing??


                      Report comment

                    • bo bo

                      http://www.rosettastone.com/mobile-apps

                      A mobile app to help you learn the basics on the go would be nice :)


                      Report comment

                    • bo bo

                      A mobile science class!
                      Which is essentially what enenews is for me often :)


                      Report comment

        • I have read the UNSCEAR report, all 369 pages.

          Mostly what it says, is a lot of nothing.

          They continually say, we didn't calculate it completely because we didn't have the data, or the data may be inaccurate. etc…

          So, their conclusions, 100% of the time, is that there will be no damage. Based on what they know. But, they admit that what they know is based on old ideas and that there are many unknowns.

          IMO -
          My conclusion of their conclusions is they make a claim with so many 'disclaimers' that making the claim at all is ludicrous at best. Yet, many will refer to them as the see all, know all, but they just read the headline spin and don't really read the detail.

          [paraphrased] :)
          "There are more holes in this report than in a Fukushima reactor!"
          - Michael Collins, EnviroReporter.com
          (Note: He was actually referring to another report, but the words fit perfectly here too.)


          Report comment

    • Angela_R

      majia,
      the following pictures come from a blog that is dated 16/03/2011. I am inclined to believe that they came from radioactivity and while Chernobyl may be a culprit, I personally do not think it is the only one. Fukushima has caused the lid to be lifted. Do you know what emissions have been/are being released from other nuclear plants?
      http://coolanimalpics.blospot.com.au/2011/03/16-two-headed-animals.html


      Report comment

  • Crickets Crickets

    I do believe aunavoz has left the building. Very impressed with the barrage of sensible and informative comments in response to hers/his. Finally found a website where the comments are dominated by the truth rather than trolls.


    Report comment

  • rogerthat

    ''mysterious disease
    scientists do not yet know
    uncharted waters
    difficult to know
    complicated
    somewhat of a challenge
    difficult to say
    scientists will try to understand
    difficult to get our heads around
    researchers scratching their heads
    radiation is extremely unlikely''

    goodness me, it quacks like a duck


    Report comment

  • Sol Man

    Saddened to hear of our leaving.
    Wise man and fools disassemble similarly.


    Report comment

  • Cdog

    From the Matrix:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Na9-jV_OJI

    Pretty much says it all. We are destroying this planet and the ruling parties know if we stop one part of that destruction another will take its place. It's either cancer from isotopes, flooding from the polar caps, acidification from oil and plastics, or more cancer from pesticides and chemicals that'll finish us and all life off. Nature will once again have her last laugh. Our species will die. In about 300 hundred million years the earth will once again be capable of handling DNA based life, and it will start all over again. I suspect this will not be the first time but at least the second. I suspect we also already trashed Mars. Our greatest flaw is our inability to remember.


    Report comment

  • Cdog

    Not that I'm downplaying the Fukushima nightmare, it's clearly started the clock of our demise to within 30 years.


    Report comment

  • Nick

    The entire nuclear cycle is toxic at the atomic level.

    Only TATAL tailors understand this.


    Report comment

  • McJillin McJillin

    Rogerthat: I roger that, and thank you for making me laugh, although this disaster is tragic beyond all belief.


    Report comment

  • aunavoz

    Dogma: a refusal to examine more than one viewpoint. A rearrangement of facts and ideas to only confirm to one accepted thinking. I think leading to a cultish community.

    Enenewsers do not disappoint as was expected.

    No I did not stay online to argue with masses here. As I predicted you have all vindicated yourselves and your dogma to the satisifaction, relief and supplication of of the group.

    Anymore than I would debate the existence of UFOs with a cult of believers.
    You are inherently wrong of course by denying carbon changes as an equally and perhaps more aggressive and pressing challenge to life on Earth.

    And as pressing is the remediation and storage of nuke waste. You cannot decommission nuclear without this challenge. And you mighty know it alls cannot do that without nuclear scientists. Or as I suggested before; don the suit and dosimeter and get out in the real life field. And acceptance that nuclear cannot be made to disappear overnight.

    But you enes insist on the focus of Fukushima. The drama and theories and consiracies and coverup you dig up from nonscientific sources.

    95% of the posts here only say "do away with nuclear." No solutions no suggestions. Just many opnions with dubious sources creditied. Everyone is an expert; everyone has an advanced physics/science degree from here.

    It is as scientific and significant to changing the world as saying I hate Justin Beiber; deport him.


    Report comment

  • aunavoz

    Exactly Mr Jebus. Yawn.

    I choose to examine all sides of the energy problems.

    You yawn. Like a frog in a pot.

    By the way for all you 24 7 enenews addicts a great way to contribute to the solution is to come unglued from your computer to enjoy what life and world is left.

    Turn it off. Escape at least a day or so a week from the doom porn here. Earth will gain a little breath of fresh air by just saving that much consumption.

    It's a good thing.


    Report comment

  • Cdog

    It is the long termed chant of the the pro nukers, don't look ahead, only live in the present. Yet it is the enlightened that do both.


    Report comment

  • aunavoz

    And you must consider that the ELE event that almost wiped out all marine life on Gaia was probably caused by a methane producing microbe.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/methane-spewing-microbe-blamed-in-earths-worst-mass-extinction/

    A microbe and not a radionuclide.

    Two sides.


    Report comment

    • m a x l i

      Let's shut down all microbes!


      Report comment

    • Jebus Jebus

      You don't know that is a fact any more than Elvis wiped them out.

      I quote the article:

      "That's the hypothesis offered on Monday by researchers aiming to solve one of science's enduring mysteries: what happened at the end of the Permian period to cause the worst of the five mass extinctions in Earth's history."

      You guys always try to pass off your hypothesis and probabilities as fact.

      Thats why we are in this nuclear shit storm today…


      Report comment

  • earthsmith

    Excellent aunavoz…. for your radionuclide stressed immune system with deforming chromosomes will surely be eaten inside out and outside in by eager microbes just like everyone else. You definitely get bunches of gold stars…maybe you should call someone and tell them of your achievements. Then go try and find a mirror and ask yourself why you exist……the starfish know, the whales know, the seals know, the salmon know, the oysters know, the dolphins know, the Tuna know, the birds know, the deer know, the buffalo know, the cattle know, the reptile know, the spiders know, the insects know, the plants know, the roots know, and yes the microbes know…..but more evident (possibly not to you) is the universe knows and it's love knows no limits and has the ability to transcend all of mankinds better than thou barriers. This ability will be needed by all in short order.


    Report comment

  • chevvvy chev

    aunavoz is a funny name for Richard Head!


    Report comment

  • aunavoz

    The carbon overload and dieoffs and warnings are real Enes.

    And this has potential to kill off our water, food and atmosphere far sooner than Fuku. It already IS happening. It isn't a false flag; it isn't aliens; it isn't a nuclear industry lie.

    To deny this is insanity. And even if I am wrong it is still a dual edged sword as to which will extinguish life sooner. Fuku actually gives us more time.

    So sit and type and deny–you have time to play schoolyard bully here. While you fear you will be irradiated and mutated–

    The air and water and heat will poison you and yours sooner without waiting for the Fuku buildup.

    You will be long dead and empty pixels of inaction and rant before Fuku kills you.

    You and yours will suffer the extreme weather destruction drought crop loss water loss far sooner before and in addition to radiation.

    How is that for doom porn?


    Report comment

      • zogerke zogerke

        reposted:troll battles 12 step

        1. we admit we have a problem and we are powerless before the urge to debunk people who lie to protect nuclear deathmachines
        2. we come to believe that a power greater than ourselves (like the community here of wise folks) can help us regain our sanity
        3. made a decision to turn our hearts and hands to protecting human and earth life as we understand it, against nukes
        4. make a fearless and moral inventory of ourselves and our ability to stay on track in the face of huge annoyance and manufactured lies
        5. admitted to the community, ourselves and our pets that we fell off topic
        6. were ready to have the enenews community correct us so we can go back to work telling the truth in all ways possible
        7. humbly asked our true peers here to help keep us on track
        8.made a list of the nuclear meltdowns and apologists we had tried to harm, and vowed to harm them in more effective ways with on topic arguments…excellent links, and creative rediculousness
        9.made direct amends except when to do so would support the shills or confuse the newcomers
        10 continue with personal inventory and when we were off topic promptly admitted it
        11. sought through concentration study and practice to strengthen connection to the community of support on enenews and elsewhere so we have the wisdom and courage to spread the truth, debunk lies and make change for the better on this planet
        12. carry this message to others and practice these principals here!


        Report comment

    • AFTERSHOCK AFTERSHOCK

      here's some bedtime reading for aunavoz…

      Hidden Influence of the Nuclear Lobby on Climate Change Legislation

      http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/04/the-hidden-influence-of-the-nuclear-lobby-on-climate-change-legislation.html

      http://www.progressive.org/farsetta0308.html

      To think, this is what's been uncovered! Imagine how many traitors are out here amongst us, selling this lie?! So what do you think aunavoz? When the revolution's over, will we discover your name in one of those Stasi rolodexes?


      Report comment

    • Jebus Jebus

      Nuclear Power is part of the problem, whereby it is adding to the overall climate change by it's massive carbon footprint from uranium mining to processing to the tremendous heat load it puts into the environment, not to mention the tritium issue and the long life radionuclide exposure from accidents like Fukushima.
      Then there is the nuclear waste issue…

      What is your solution aunavoz?


      Report comment

      • aunavoz

        Mr Jebus. I do not feel that nuclear is the end all solution in spite of the comments received here. The waste issue and the danger of accidents like Fuku speak for themselves.

        However I do believe that carbon changes are real immediate and pressing as well.
        And we are already seeing the dire consequences of excessive carbon in our worl

        I do not have the answer (which again sets me up for more bullying here).

        And I think ignoring carbon changes only to further a frenzy of antinuke hysteria is dangerous and foolish.

        In reality neither side alone can win. Both sides alone can and with near certainty will lose.

        It doesn't matter which means Gaia flicks us off like fleas. She has done it before with carbon and methane. The Universe has done it with cosmic cataclysms.

        This is a manmade cataclysm. Gaia will ultimately win. One way or another.

        Divided man will stand mute and impotent.

        A frog in a pot.


        Report comment

        • VanneV VanneV

          Scientists do have an answer. With present technology 4 times the present needs for energy world wide can be filled by solar energy alone.


          Report comment

        • Jebus Jebus

          Granted, nothing lasts forever.

          So what is your point if there is no hope and we will all eventually be gone? This site is mainly about nuclear issues, although there is a very good alt energy thread on the sidebar. What is your point in trying, very weakly, to dis ENENEWS? We have hope here, although incrementaly, human by human. This site has evolved into awareness about the seventy years of nuclear lies. Again incrementaly we will wake up others to the nuclear issues. Somehow you take offence to that. We do not hate nuclear scientists. It obvious they have not figured how to handle nuclear. The first step to solving the issue of nuclear waste is to quit producing it. Yes we will need nuclear scientists to help figure out a solution for the waste. The answer IMHO is to have a distributed grid of true renewable energy, solar and wind. Conservation is the immediate answer and the focus (money) needs to be redirected towards this end, of which it is already heading that direction away from nuclear just by concensus. It's not over yet and nuclear power is not the answer in any way shape or form. It has had seventy years to get it right. It's time to change direction. There is hope, stick around and learn. I read everything, pro and con. You should do the same. The answers are not easy to come by, but the change requires everyone to be a part of it…


          Report comment

    • m a x l i

      If you would look in a mirror, this is what you will see, aunavoz:

      •You tell us that the administration of this site can not be trusted, because they choose to remain anonymous; and you try to convince us of that 'fact' of yours while you yourself choose to remain anonymous.
      •You tell us it's not good for us or anyone when he hang out here (glued to this web site) too much, while you obviously cannot get enough hanging out here.
      •You criticise us for not coming up with a 'solution', while you yourself never even present us the shadow of a solution…a solution to problems your kind caused, by the way.
      •You claim this site would be a source of doom porn, while you yourself deliver posts that would quite well earn the label doom porn.

      What does that make you? Nothing more than the average sad little still-pro-nuker who cannot think straight. Maybe you are confused and lost and don't know where to go. I certainly would be confused and lost when it slowly began to dawn on me that I was manipulated, brainwashed and lied to all my life by a cult that I was a part of. Maybe one day you will find your way. Good luck to you!


      Report comment

  • many moons

    I'm not sure there is such a thing as nuclear power…I think there are nuclear plants but they produce the materials for weapons.

    How has Japan managed without "nuclear power for the last 3 years…if it's so important….and been given the honor of holding the 2020 Olympics????

    Hanford Nuclear power station was built to manufacture the nuclear material for bomb making…later it was called a nuclear energy plant.


    Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.