|
Miss-Bomarc posted:New one on me, but Fukushima-related. There's some bacterial outbreak that is wiping out several species of starfish on the California coast. A guy in the cafeteria this morning came up to me and, apropos of nothing, said "you heard about the starfish, right? Know why that's happening? Fukushima radiation." If you wanna believe that a Nuclear Meltdown of unknown proportions doesn't pose a risk to animal or human health go right ahead. I'd be very surprised if the starfish melting wasn't being helped by man made pollution.
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 10:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
Larry_Mullet posted:If you wanna believe that a Nuclear Meltdown of unknown proportions doesn't pose a risk to animal or human health go right ahead. Did you just retreat to "well, pollution"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Did you just retreat to "well, pollution"? No I don't believe I did. I find it mildly annoying that just because someone explained to Miss-Bomarc that they're worried about a Nuclear Meltdown, the extent of which is being deliberately kept under wraps by TEPCO, she can just hop online and call that person crazy. Perhaps Miss-Bomarc can tell us what the cause of such widespread infection of starfish is; and while they're at it maybe they could also tell us why a nuclear meltdown that's being happening for nearly 2 years now is not worth worrying about unless you're 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
Because it's been contained and what would they have to gain by hiding it? I'm not saying there isn't a potential problem but this particular issue affects a specific breed of starfish, and seemingly very little else around it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
Larry_Mullet posted:No I don't believe I did. I find it mildly annoying that just because someone explained to Miss-Bomarc that they're worried about a Nuclear Meltdown, the extent of which is being deliberately kept under wraps by TEPCO, she can just hop online and call that person crazy. Perhaps Miss-Bomarc can tell us what the cause of such widespread infection of starfish is; and while they're at it maybe they could also tell us why a nuclear meltdown that's being happening for nearly 2 years now is not worth worrying about unless you're Because the symptoms don't sound like anything radiation causes. And it's only affecting starfish.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Because it's been contained Source? Kit Walker posted:Because the symptoms don't sound like anything radiation causes. And it's only affecting starfish. Cell damage or rather, immune system damage, doesn't sound like something that radiation causes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
And the accident took place in Japan, not California.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
duz posted:And the accident took place in Japan, not California. So running any kind of scientific analysis of the effects of Fukushima radiation on any pacific sea-life is a waste of time, in your opinion? Does being concerned about the health effects of millions of gallons of irradiated water flowing into the ocean for a few years make you a loon?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Larry_Mullet posted:
Would you like to explain this point? quote:why the "radiation" was killing only some starfish species, and not everything off the coast including fish, seaweed, otters, and oh yeah ALL THE OTHER STARFISH
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Larry_Mullet posted:So running any kind of scientific analysis of the effects of Fukushima radiation on any pacific sea-life is a waste of time, in your opinion? Does being concerned about the health effects of millions of gallons of irradiated water flowing into the ocean for a few years make you a loon? No? But why is it affecting only california and not an entire ocean between them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Yeah this is one I see a lot. People normally not into pseudoscience or conspiracy theories suddenly all freaked out about radiation from japan having any measurable effects anywhere outside of the immediate area, let alone across the loving pacific ocean. You can explain all the science to them, but it's still "Yeah but radiation!" or "Yeah but they lied about this one thing! What else aren't they telling us? Me? I'm staying out of the water!" I guess it's a perfect storm. Take a scientific thing people don't understand but are hyper fearful of, and combine it with an agency known to bend or hide the truth. Perfect breeding ground for insane conspiracies are utter paranoia. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Jan 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Yeah this is one I see a lot. People normally not into pseudoscience or conspiracy theories suddenly all freaked out about radiation from japan having any measurable effects anywhere outside of the immediate area, let alone across the loving pacific ocean. You can explain all the science to them, but it's still "Yeah but radiation!" or "Yeah but they lied about this one thing! What else aren't they telling us? Me? I'm staying out of the water!" I'm much more interested about that plastic continent that is actually growing in the Pacific, and whether it will be a long-term environmental disaster or the spawning grounds for a new race of plastic fishpeople.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Larry_Mullet posted:So running any kind of scientific analysis of the effects of Fukushima radiation on any pacific sea-life is a waste of time, in your opinion? Does being concerned about the health effects of millions of gallons of irradiated water flowing into the ocean for a few years make you a loon? According to the NOAA, the Pacific Ocean is approx. 174,400,000,000,000,000,000 gallons. So yes, if you're seriously worried about the effects outside of the immediate area, you misunderstand several things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Would you like to explain this point? I don't think the radiation is the root cause I think it's depressed their immune system enough to allow this disease to ravage them. RagnarokAngel posted:No? But why is it affecting only california and not an entire ocean between them? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Nov. 11, 2013 (emphasis added): [...] Two major peaks in POC [particulate organic carbon] flux occurred over the last 18 mo of the time series [...] The peak POC flux in spring/summer 2011 was the highest recorded over the 24-y time series (Fig. 1D) [...] The daily presence of detrital aggregates on the sea floor did not exceed 15% coverage over the period from 1990 to 2007. The highest sea-floor coverage by detrital aggregates measured throughout the 24-y time series occurred between March and August 2012 , when salp detritus ranged from <1% cover in early March to a high of 98% cover on 1 July (Fig. 1E). This was the only measurable deposition event of salps observed during the entire time series. Following this salp pulse, phytodetrital aggregates combined with some salp detritus formed another major deposition event beginning in late August and peaking in mid-September. This pulse covered up to 61% of the sea floor (Fig. 1E), the largest primarily phytodetrital aggregate peak recorded during the time series. [...] Although environmental variation, such as air temperature and winds, affect the physical dynamics of this upwelling ecosystem, the specific mechanisms behind the changes in food-supply composition and food-web processes corresponding with the peaks in 2011 and 2012 remain unknown. Such increases in food supply appear to change the structure and functioning of deep-sea communities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:I'm much more interested about that plastic continent that is actually growing in the Pacific, and whether it will be a long-term environmental disaster or the spawning grounds for a new race of plastic fishpeople. The ocean is utterly hosed basically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
Larry_Mullet posted:radiation Are you picking up any anomalies on your homemade sensors?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:The ocean is utterly hosed basically. spottedSomeone should tell TEPCO not to bother with the nuclear cleanup seeing as how it's so harmless
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
I'm seriously loving this martyr bullshit you're pulling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
This thread is the most  honeypot for people who are actually in the conspiracy crowd.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:I'm seriously loving this martyr bullshit you're pulling. What martyr bullshit?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Larry_Mullet posted:I don't think the radiation is the root cause I think it's depressed their immune system enough to allow this disease to ravage them. It's a virus affecting certain types of starfish in a specific region of the world. Blaming it on radiation from a reactor meltdown halfway around the world while ignoring that there are no other signs of radiation is like saying the recent H1N1 cases are being caused by the meltdown. I'll worry about the effects of radiation in California after marine biologists say the virus killing so many starfish is due to radiation. Edit: quote:Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Nov. 11, 2013 You... you do know the article you linked says none of that, right? I mean, literally everything you posted after the link does not show up in that article. In fact, it specifically says: quote:The researchers note that deep-sea feasts may be increasing in frequency off the Central California coast, as well as at some other deep-sea study sites around the world. Over the last decade, the waters off Central California have seen stronger winds, which bring more nutrients, such as nitrate, to the ocean surface. These nutrients act like fertilizer, triggering blooms of algae, which, in turn, sometimes feed blooms of salps. The fallout from all of this increased productivity eventually ends up on the seafloor. Randalor fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Jan 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Randalor posted:It's a virus affecting certain *snip* Give me a source for this assertion. Then I'll answer your point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Larry_Mullet posted:Give me a source for this assertion. ... Opening paragraph of the article that started you going on a tangent about radiation effecting California from Japan? quote:A mysterious disease is decimating several species of sea stars along the Pacific west coast and small parts of the Atlantic coast. Only one confirmed case of the disease has been found in San Diego waters off of Point Loma in early December. Areas to the north are experiencing mass die-offs, especially off the central coast of California. Scientists have named the disease “sea star wasting syndrome” and it affects all types of sea stars including the common star fish.[/b] Now, I will admit, I was wrong to say it was a virus only effecting a few species. I meant to say a disease decimating a few species. However, there is still no evidence that radiation had anything to do with it. as I said, I won't jump to conclusions until marine biologists have completed their findings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
If anything from Fukushima was reaching the US west coast in sufficient concentrations to harm anything, then people would be dying en masse in the streets of Japan. There's something called dispersion where if something is released into a fluid (water or air) it exhibits dropoffs at a distance. Even without working the numbers, if you're looking at negative biological outcomes thousands of kilometers away you're probably going to see much more serious poo poo within hundreds of kilometers of the release site. And we're not seeing those. But aside from that, I haven't seen any credible studies showing widespread contamination from Fukushima (and relabeled maps of wave height or debris don't count) plus my own experience doing calculations on radioactive plumes and dispersion suggests that it's impossible at such a distance even if the entire quantity of active and spent fuel was dumped right into the water outside of the plant all at once. BattleMaster fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Jan 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
I guess there is an equivalent Occam's Razor for the conspiracy crowd: Jones' Razor. Can something be explained in a brief easy manner... or is it a GLOBAL CONSPIRATORIAL EFFORT TO SUPRESS THE TRUTH? I'm just askin questions here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:There's something called dispersion My Crackpot Mom probably would have posted:This is bullshit! Water has memory, so the radiation will be stronger by the time it reaches us.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Why link fukoshima to this at all, why even consider it? Why not any other thing happening anywhere near the ocean? I could see this being blamed on some new chemical plant or industry in the area having a leak and the authorities covering it up (because it's the plant they make chemtrails at) . I could see it blamed on shipping traffic spreading diseases around the ocean. I could see it blamed on climate change effecting the eco-balance in the area resulting in an outbreak. I could see it blamed on over-fishing effecting the food chain leading to sickness and outbreaks. I could think of thousands of actual things that while still ridiculous could at least have a known mechanism of effecting this situation. Fukoshima is not one of them. Why jump at it? Why even consider it? Because "it's a thing I heard in the news that happened in the pacific ocean" ? Reminds me a bit about a friend of mine with absolutely no understanding or knowledge of astronomy or space. When that very well filmed meteorite hit in Russia he got interested in space a little and also read there was some comet passing earth around the same time. He then declared they were related, this was obviously a piece of that comet. Actual astronomy friends tried to nicely tell him they came from opposite directions, the timing is off, and so on. But he kept saying "It can't be a coincidence that these are happening at the same time! You can't discount it!" and became more and more defensive, moving the goal posts from "this is obviously a piece of the same comet" to "Well ok it probably isn't but it's really unfair for you to have discounted this totally! I could have been right in theory!". Even developed a martyr complex! I think it's a similar situation here. You take someone who maybe doesn't know a lot about the ocean, biology, geography, and specially radiation. They don't really pay attention to the daily news stories of absolutely horrific things happening to the ocean, it takes something hyped up by the media like fukoshima for them to take notice. They then read another news thing, something about starfish. Hmmmm, it's in the same ocean? Hmmm two bad things happening in the same ocean within the same sort of timeframe? Must be linked! Humans love to link things, our brains jump at the chance. And once this link is made, it becomes emotional and very hard to shake. No, there is absolutely no way this is linked to fukoshima. It's dangerous effects are incredibly local and even at its worst, if everything goes as wrong as possible, poses no serious risk to anywhere but the immediate area. Heavy metals and other more "conventional" sources of pollution are far higher on the danger scale than the radiation in this situation. There are very real things effecting the worlds oceans that we should be very alarmed about, this is not even remotely one of them. Hell, people holding off fishing in the area is a net gain for the environment. I wish someone would "dirty bomb" the ocean to the point that people are paranoid about eating fish but there's no actual harm or danger so we'd cut back our fishing for a couple years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
This is ridiculous. I live on the other side of the world and don't really give a gently caress what happens to the west coast of america. I'm just absolutely mind boggled that a massive environmental disaster apparently has no negative effects outside of a 5 mile radius. What I said about the starfish was a guess, I didn't say there's definitely radiation hitting california or any of that all I said was that (in the absence of any studies on what IS causing the starfish to dissolve)I think it's probably nuclear waste or pollution that's caused such widespread vulnerability. Clearly I'm a nutjob... FYI http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1514492/20-years-on-Britain-still-feels-the-effects-of-Chernobyl.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:If anything from Fukushima was reaching the US west coast in sufficient concentrations to harm anything, then people would be dying en masse in the streets of Japan. There's something called dispersion where if something is released into a fluid (water or air) it exhibits dropoffs at a distance. Even without working the numbers, if you're looking at negative biological outcomes thousands of kilometers away you're probably going to see much more serious poo poo within hundreds of kilometers of the release site. And we're not seeing those. Pretty much this. Considering how much water is between Japan and California, it's really doubtful that any meaningful amount of radiation is reaching the US coast, or even the Philippines. For enough radiation to do any damage at that distance, the Fukushima reactor would have to be a radioactive death oven as bad or even worse than Chernobyl. Seriously, the entire area would have to be glowing visibly blue with Cherenkov Radiation. (Remember: blue is the color of radioactive death, not green) If the starfish were dying in droves on the Japanese coast around Fukushima but nothing else was, I'd be willing to entertain the possibility that starfish were especially vulnerable to radiation. Since the starfish are dying thousands of miles away when nothing else seems to be similarly affected in the area or in between, I rather doubt radiation is the cause of the starfish death. That's not to say the radiation will exactly be healthy for the area around the afflicted reactor, but it's not causing a fishkill, or starfishkill, on US coasts. Alkydere fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Jan 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Larry_Mullet posted:I think it's probably nuclear waste or pollution that's caused such widespread vulnerability. This opinion is based on your extensive experience in biology, chemistry, and nuclear physics?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Larry_Mullet posted:This is ridiculous. I live on the other side of the world and don't really give a gently caress what happens to the west coast of america. I'm just absolutely mind boggled that a massive environmental disaster apparently has no negative effects outside of a 5 mile radius. Are you upset that you aren't a mutant from 3 Mile Island?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:
It's not even starfish in general, it's a particular species of starfish.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's not even starfish in general, it's a particular species of starfish. Well to be fair, a few species of starfish, which is unusual for this sort of thing. But to jump to the conclusion that it's caused by radiation on the other side of the goddamn ocean (and somehow leapfrogged over everywhere else) is more than a bit insane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Phone posted:Are you upset that you aren't a mutant from 3 Mile Island? Look, I know the cast of Jersey Show arn't the best looking, but do you have to call them names?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
What massive environmental disaster? The earthquake and resulting tsunami? Compared to the debris and actual toxic chemicals washed into the ocean, fukoshima was a drop in the bucket. It hurt the economy and a handful of people, but not the environment in any meaningful way. It's just "RADIATION" so the media jumps on it. It's an infrastructure disaster and we tend to take anything related to radiation very seriously, often too seriously. Take your sheep example. What are the criteria the government is using to declare the land unsafe? If it's anything like regulations relating to most nuclear industries, it's extremely paranoid and political. For instance, anything coming out of a nuclear power plant is declared "radioactive waste" if it's more than a tiny bit above background levels. This means if one was to take a normal granite block from a building perfectly suitable for human habitation, walk into a nuclear plant, and try to walk out, that brick could technically be labled nuclear waste and would need to be sealed away in some bunker for thousands of years. Why?? Because the rules were made by politicians rather than scientists. Meanwhile a coal plant can belch out more radiation than fukoshima and no one bats an eye. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that grazing land poses absolutely no actual health danger and in fact has lower levels of radiation than the natural background radiation in many parts of the world and the entire thing is political/paranoia. Some bureaucrat enforcing a hastily made regulation declaring the land dangerous until it falls back to pre-chernobyl levels, doesn't matter if it's only .0001% higher than normal. Doesn't matter if another sheep field somewhere else is 500% as radioactive due to different geology yet considered perfectly safe. Of course that's just my best guess based on what I know about these sorts of policies. Short of actually burring a bunch of irradiated chernoybl clean-up equipment in this guy's field I don't see how somewhere in wales could have been actually effected (as in actual harmful to health effects, not just technically measurable levels).
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:What massive environmental disaster? The earthquake and resulting tsunami? Compared to the debris and actual toxic chemicals washed into the ocean, fukoshima was a drop in the bucket. It hurt the economy and a handful of people, but not the environment in any meaningful way. It's just "RADIATION" so the media jumps on it. It's an infrastructure disaster and we tend to take anything related to radiation very seriously, often too seriously. I don't know about the UK but the nuclear safety criteria in Canada are so strict that our releases from CANDU reactors (which are almost nothing anyways, a little bit of tritium leaks out over time) are lower than the predicted routine release rates that are almost zero anyways. That's just how strict the government is about anything to do with radiation, that people in this industry tend to maintain equipment and follow procedures better than expected rather than worse than expected. Unlike a lot of other industries, this isn't a place where workers routinely slack off on safety protocols and the company just eats the fine when the limits are exceeded. I wouldn't be surprised if the levels measured in the place in that article are on the order of single- or double-digit counts per minute higher than the average background in the UK and still lower than the natural levels in some places, which can be surprisingly high depending on the concentrations of certain kinds of ore. BattleMaster fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Jan 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Larry_Mullet posted:I don't think the radiation is the root cause I think it's depressed their immune system enough to allow this disease to ravage them. That is simply not how their biology works, even if we made the utterly false assumption massive amounts of radiation somehow showed up there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Right but perhaps radiation has changed how biology works? Have you not seen the documentary on invertebrates exposed to radiation titled "Spiderman" ?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:That is simply not how their biology works, even if we made the utterly false assumption massive amounts of radiation somehow showed up there. Yeah you're right i'm a moron, wonder what it is though, i'm definitely going to follow the story though as it is quite freaky.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
Larry_Mullet posted:Yeah you're right i'm a moron, wonder what it is though, i'm definitely going to follow the story though as it is quite freaky. It's probably because they don't pray to Jesus every night. Prove me wrong, liberals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 20:19
|
|