Damage being done to the Pacifics eco-system due to the Fukushima incident

[StringJunky]

 

StringJunky, would you care to explain what that one means? Sorry, if that's a stupid question.

When people single-handedly argue against several lines of evidence from different people - and it happens too often - I always think of Galileo and his persecution. They are showing signs of a Galileo Complex. I just happened to be thinking of Shakespeare as well.

[John Cuthber]

And I am supposed to take you guys seriously when you talk about the ecological possibilities of the Fukushima plume, when you are so fundamentally ignorant about even basic biology, and so ludicrously arrogant in your repeated assertions based on that fundamental ignorance.

OK, you claim I'm ignorant.

Is that just bias on your part, or do you have evidence?

What errors have I made to show that I lack understanding and/ or knowledge?

 

On the other hand, your list of straw men shows that you don't seem to understand what I have written, but let's gloss over that for the moment.

 

Show me the evidence of my foolishness.

[overtone]

 

 

OK, you claim I'm ignorant.

Is that just bias on your part, or do you have evidence?

Oh, dude.

Apparently I have to repeat this point, made five or six times now, in greater detail: when I quote something, link something, present observations of fact, etc etc etc, they are in service of my posting - evidence for the argument, examples of the observation, that kind of thing. If you don't pay any attention to them, or you don't bother to follow the argument or register the observation or whatever, you run the risk of asking for evidence like that. And by now you'll get no sympathy from me.

 

 

Show me the evidence of my foolishness.

How about you give up on this tactic, and address the concerns of the thread.

 

Alternatively, you could just let other people mull the thread topic over in peace.

[John Cuthber]

So, you can't actually cite a specific instance then?

 

BTW, you don't get to make libellous statements then say "How about you give up on this tactic, and address the concerns of the thread." when they ask you to substantiate them.

Edited April 15, 2015 by John Cuthber

[overtone]

One of the studies you linked was centered on caesium accumulation by benthic plants and macro-invertebrates which is not exactly relevant to the discussion of a plume in pelagic zone and the second article was regarding accumulation of Cs from Chernobyl fallout by a land fungi.

Yes.

 

Now, do you recall what my argument was? I posted those links as evidence for my argument, the one I was making in my posts using my words.

 

 

 

 

Throughout this thread you keep proclaiming ignorance on the side of those who oppose your idea

No, I don't. Not "throughout this thread".

 

and yet you keep ignoring all the information and links to various studies that you are being presented.

Uh, no: I have "proclaimed" (it was an observation) differential or specific ignorance in those "opposed to my idea" (nobody's been addressing my "idea" at all) at most a couple of times, and quoted the evidence - the assertions and claims that reveal a deficit of basic information in the poster.

 

If you wish to contradict my observations, the valid way would be to present an argument or address the evidence. For example, you could explain to me how an element's membership in a particular periodic element group ensures equivalence in uptake and concentration among the various organisms and ecosystems of the Pacific Ocean, demonstrating that you know what the relevant biochemical pathways are, you know by research and observation how the elements of the group are handled by those pathways or some validity establishing selection of them, and you are familiar with all the specific ecosystems involved. That would show us all that the assertion of such equivalence was not necessarily made in ignorance, and I should not have assumed it was.

 

You will have trouble doing that, partly because it isn't so in general anywhere, and partly because:

 

Also, and far often and far more to the point, I have claimed universal ignorance in several key matters critical to any reassurances regarding the ecological effects of the Fukushima emissions: the exposure regime along the plume in time and space, the fate of the lost bad stuff, and the enormously complex biological and ecological relationships of the northern Pacific Ocean, in particular.

 

And that, of course, directly addressed this, which you post as if it were new to me or foreign to my posting:

 

 

Here is another quote for you from <How Is Fukushima Fallout affecting Marine Life>

- - - -

Fish also excrete cesium fairly efficiently, losing a few percent per day. So if fish are no longer exposed to new contamination sources, the levels in their tissue should decrease fairly quickly.

Of particular concern for top-level consumers is the potential that these radioisotopes will be concentrated as they make their way up the food chain—what ecologists call biomagnification. Fortunately, cesium shows only modest biomagnification in marine food chains

Expanding on the earlier posting: the effects of transient cesium uptake on most studied fish are unknown; studied fish (mostly commercially important fish) are not the only significant fish here; fish are not the only, or even majority, significant organisms; the majority of the food chains of the various ecosystems of the Pacific Ocean have not even been identified and traced let alone studied for biomagnification of cesium; bioaccumulation and transient bioexposure concerns are at least as important and far more likely than biomagnification anyway. And you still have the exposure regime at the bottom of the food chain to consider - we know by the plume map, demonstration, that every local exposure regime from the power plant across the Pacific is potentially ecologically connected to that entire area.

 

The reason you overlooked that obvious context of the article you quoted is the same as the reason you apparently didn't realize it had been addressed: you aren't following the argument.

 

So why are you claiming I have ignored matters I have directly and repeatedly addressed, with argument and observation and quotes and links and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, several times here?

Edited April 15, 2015 by overtone

[pavelcherepan]

 

Yes.

Now, do you recall what my argument was? I posted those links as evidence for my argument, the one I was making in my posts using my words.

 

I remember what your argument was, but as I said before, other studies (including those you're referring to) contradict your position and plus you can't use data for Cs accumulation in roots of benthic plants when discussing the plume because there are no plants in pelagic zone.

 

The other article on accumulation by fungi while also hardly relevant to the current discussion contradicts your statement of preferential Cs accumulation showing (at least in the abstract) that Cs is accumulated similarly to K and Rb.

 

So you may have made an argument and posted the evidence to support it but it doesn't seem that your evidence is valid.

 

 

 

If you wish to contradict my observations, the valid way would be to present an argument or address the evidence.

 

Which I did in the previous post and which you refused to acknowledge so for your convenience I've repeated it above ^.

 

 

 

uptake and concentration among the various organisms and ecosystems of the Pacific Ocean, demonstrating that you know what the relevant biochemical pathways are, you know by research and observation how the elements of the group are handled by those pathways or some validity establishing selection of them, and you are familiar with all the specific ecosystems involved.

<...>

You will have trouble doing that

<...>

fish are not the only, or even majority, significant organisms; the majority of the food chains of the various ecosystems of the Pacific Ocean have not even been identified and traced let alone studied for biomagnification of cesium

<...>

And you still have the exposure regime at the bottom of the food chain to consider

 

So you say. Let's think of a marine ecosystems affected. The base of the food chain is phytoplankton, which provides food for zooplankton and then to various types of fish and other organisms. As far as the fish is concerned I've already linked you to a study showing that they excrete Cs quite effectively and it doesn't accumulate extensively. Instead, let's look at the other side of the food pyramid and see whether there've been studies regarding accumulation by phytoplankton. And indeed there have been some. For example,

 

<Bioaccumulation of ¹³⁷Cs and ⁵⁷Co by five marine phytoplankton species>

 

 

The results suggest that, in contrast to Co, the cycling and bioaccumulation of Cs in marine animals are unlikely to be affected by Cs accumulation in primary producers.

<...>

For ¹³⁷Cs, however, the uptake was generally much lower in both growing and non-growing cells ( Figs. 1c and d) and for some of the species it was not significantly different from the blanks. No significant differences in the uptake of ¹³⁷Cs between the species were evident from these data.

<...>

Cs, an alkali metal, is an analog of potassium and could be thought to exchange with K and in this way enter the food chain. However, K concentrations in seawater (10 mM) far exceed Cs concentrations (2 nM) and consequently Cs uptake through K uptake channels is negligible.

<...>

Our results indicate that phytoplankton are unlikely to influence the Cs build-up in marine food chains and Cs flux to deep waters.

 

How does this sound?

 

 

 

The reason you overlooked that obvious context of the article you quoted is the same as the reason you apparently didn't realize it had been addressed: you aren't following the argument.

 

I am. You just chose to ignore my argumentation.

 

 

 

bioaccumulation and transient bioexposure concerns are at least as important and far more likely than biomagnification anyway.

 

As far as bioexposure is concerned you've been shown time and time again by everyone in the thread that radioactivity levels from Fukushima plume in the Pacific are by orders of magnitude lower than natural background from ⁴⁰K. I can't count how many times that point have been made and how much evidence you've been presented with and since you bring it up again I have no other option but to conclude that it's in fact you who is being ignorant.

 

When people single-handedly argue against several lines of evidence from different people - and it happens too often - I always think of Galileo and his persecution. They are showing signs of a Galileo Complex. I just happened to be thinking of Shakespeare as well.

 

Thanks for the explanation. Makes more sense now.

Edited April 15, 2015 by pavelcherepan

[overtone]

I remember what your argument was, but as I said before, other studies (including those you're referring to) contradict your position and plus you can't use data for Cs accumulation in roots of benthic plants when discussing the plume because there are no plants in pelagic zone.

1) So if you remember it, why are you posting irrelevancies and bs as if you had never read it? 2) Although it's not strictly relevant, and I hesitate to provide the opening for more wince-worthy crap , there are plants in large and significant Pacific Ocean ecosystems exposed to the Fukushima emissions, and they are ecologically connected to the entire exposure area of the plume - the plume itself proves that. Their exposure regimes (concentrations, timing, duration, life cycle influences, contribution of other organisms, etc etc etc) are unknown, as is their handling of cesium, as are the effects of their response to cesium as they were exposed on everything that lives with them.

 

 

So you say. Let's think of a marine ecosystems affected. The base of the food chain is phytoplankton, which provides food for zooplankton and then to various types of fish and other organisms. As far as the fish is concerned I've already linked you to a study showing that they excrete Cs quite effectively and it doesn't accumulate extensively. Instead, let's look at the other side of the food pyramid and see whether there've been studies regarding accumulation by phytoplankton. And indeed there have been some. For example - -

So let's summarize that: you don't have any adequate bodies of research into the many and complex ecosystems of the Pacific Ocean to point to, and that's because there aren't any. So you are posting some rudimentary investigations into a couple of the bits and pieces that somewhat resemble a miniscule subset of the ones from which these ecosystems are built, and assuming that there's nothing else significant out there. You extrapolated from a few fish species studied short term to all the fish in the ocean at any stage of their life cycle, just to point to the obvious and give you every benefit of consideration (there are actual studies of some significant and relevant fish, which is far more info than we have about most of that Ocean).

 

 

As far as bioexposure is concerned you've been shown time and time again by everyone in the thread that radioactivity levels from Fukushima plume in the Pacific are by orders of magnitude lower than natural background from ⁴⁰K

The open water dissolved cesium diluted during its passage across the ocean, that would be.

 

And I have time and time again responded: So? I mean, are you just trolling with this shit or do you have a point?

Edited April 16, 2015 by overtone

[pavelcherepan]

So let's summarize that: you don't have any adequate bodies of research into the many and complex ecosystems of the Pacific Ocean to point to, and that's because there aren't any. So you are posting some rudimentary investigations into a couple of the bits and pieces that somewhat resemble a miniscule subset of the ones from which these ecosystems are built, and assuming that there's nothing else significant out there.

 

That's a logical fallacy you're using, an argument from ignorance. If you want to prove your point please provide relevant evidence to support it, but instead what you're trying to do is to say that "Since we don't know for certain, you must be wrong". Attempting to shift the burden of proof is also lame. If you want to prove something then do it, if you claim that research I've linked is rudimentary then provide some that is not. Random hand-waiving and logical fallacies never helped any scientific discussions and won't do any good now either.

 

Also, I'm not a marine biologist or a biologist at all for that matter but it seems quite reasonable to me that if we analyse both the top and the bottom of the food chain and see that there's no significant bioaccumulation of radiocaesium in either of these then we can infer that middle bits of the chain don't accumulate it to a large extent.

 

And I have time and time again responded: So? I mean, are you just trolling with this shit or do you have a point?

 

I think you need to: 1) watch your language, 2) finally try and properly acknowledge and try to dispute the evidence that you've been provided, 3) provide evidence to support your position.

[overtone]

That's a logical fallacy you're using, an argument from ignorance.

No, it isn't.

 

If you want to prove your point please provide relevant evidence to support it,

Already done, to exhaustion, including in the fragments you have quoted.

 

but instead what you're trying to do is to say that "Since we don't know for certain, you must be wrong".

I'm saying that since you don't know what you need to know about several key factors involved, any reassurances you make are not supported and could easily be wrong unless very carefully argued.

 

And that discussions of possible damage from the Fukushima emissions cannot be dismissed by reassurances based in ignorance and bad argument.

 

I'm trying to get you recognize the scope of your ignorance, and thereby what you cannot safely assert without careful argument.

 

 

 

If you want to prove something then do it, if you claim that research I've linked is rudimentary then provide some that is not.

And once again we enter the twilight zone of this singular weird cluelessness in the face of this one form of argument. The posters change, the threads change, the error remains the same.

 

Look, here's what I posted: " - - - - you don't have any adequate bodies of research into the many and complex ecosystems of the Pacific Ocean to point to, and that's because there aren't any. So you are posting some rudimentary investigations - - - ". Why didn't the phrase "and that's because there aren't any" register as an assertion of mine?

 

 

 

 

Also, I'm not a marine biologist or a biologist at all for that matter but it seems quite reasonable to me that if we analyse both the top and the bottom of the food chain and see that there's no significant bioaccumulation of radiocaesium in either of these then we can infer that middle bits of the chain don't accumulate it to a large extent.

1) the inference is an error - organisms in the middle can bioaccumulate without the top or bottom doing so, also you have overlooked the back half of the food chain (waste, decomposition, deposition, etc)

2) You have to analyze all the potentially affected food chains - most have not even been traced.

3) No one has actually analyzed more than a fraction of the top or bottom of the food chains at issue anyway - extrapolations from a few species of fish somewhere over a short time to all of them everywhere over life cycle changes, for example, are assumption based; the situation with the phytoplankton is even worse; and anything else forget it - we might have some relevant data on shellfish of commercial importance, a whale species or two, a commercially significant squid, or we might not.

4) long term bioaccumulation is not necessary for injury, especially in the early exposure regimes involving more prevalent hot spots and concentrated emissions and various life cycle stages.

5) In the absence of information, all injuries are potentially connected to ecosystems throughout. Some day we could be running into Fukushima emission damage to local Pacific ecosystems that were never exposed at all themselves - in the matter of ecosystem damage, the butterfly effect is not an esoteric abstraction but a continual consideration.

6) and so forth.

 

It ain't rocket science, at least not until somebody tries to get answers.

Edited April 17, 2015 by overtone

[pavelcherepan]

Already done, to exhaustion, including in the fragments you have quoted.

 

I've browsed through the entire thread to check your evidence and so far you have linked 4 sources. Two of those I have discussed in the previous posts and the rest is popular science pages, but even those seem to contradict what you say. Just for your reference, this is all the evidence you have posted so far:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20334900

http://link.springer.com/article/10.2478%2Fs13545-011-0023-6#page-2%C2%A0

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/how-is-fukushimas-fallout-affecting-marine-life

http://www.cfact.org/2014/01/07/true-facts-about-ocean-radiation-and-the-fukushima-disaster/

 

Only two of those are real science papers and even those seem to contradict what you say as discussed previously. None of these seem to explicitly support your claims.

 

 

 

Look, here's what I posted: " - - - - you don't have any adequate bodies of research into the many and complex ecosystems of the Pacific Ocean to point to, and that's because there aren't any. So you are posting some rudimentary investigations - - - ". Why didn't the phrase "and that's because there aren't any" register as an assertion of mine?

 

I have no idea why you re-iterate that. Do you want to keep your argumentum ad ignorantiam going? If you want to prove you position find proper evidence because that's how science works. I'm not saying "There will be no ecological consequences", do I? I'm just saying that "Based on scientific peer-reviewed evidence the likelihood of major damage is low".

 

 

 

1) the inference is an error - organisms in the middle can bioaccumulate without the top or bottom doing so, also you have overlooked the back half of the food chain (waste, decomposition, deposition, etc)

 

Oh, well, maybe so, but if organisms in the middle of the food chain accumulate radiocaesium and it doesn't lead to increased concentrations along the food chain then it's not a damage to the entire ecosystem, but just to several specific organisms.

 

 

 

2) You have to analyze all the potentially affected food chains - most have not even been traced.

 

Again, argumentum ad ignorantiam. How many of those do you have stocked? Science doesn't work like that, it's approximation by default. No scientific theory ever claimed to have 100% of related phenomena investigated. And how in the world are you ever supposed to know that you've studied them all? Are you expecting a giant sign to appear in the sky saying "Well done, mate! You've studied them all!"?

 

That's why theories are mean to be updated as new evidence arrives. You should look up Scientific Method.

 

 

 

3) No one has actually analyzed more than a fraction of the top or bottom of the food chains at issue anyway - extrapolations from a few species of fish somewhere over a short time to all of them everywhere over life cycle changes, for example, are assumption based; the situation with the phytoplankton is even worse;

 

Again? You're on fire today! By the way, I have provided you with links on Cs accumulation in phytoplankton and it doesn't seem all that bad.

 

 

 

4) long term bioaccumulation is not necessary for injury, especially in the early exposure regimes involving more prevalent hot spots and concentrated emissions and various life cycle stages.

 

Do you even read what people wrote about background radiation levels?

 

 

5) In the absence of information, all injuries are potentially connected to ecosystems throughout.

<...>

6) and so forth.

 

Allow me to continue your line of thought. I think I'm pretty good with it now:

 

7) Due to the lack of relevant data...

8) Because not all organisms have been studied...

9) Since we don't know enough...

10) We can't conclude this based on limited evidence we have...

....

[swansont]

The open water dissolved cesium diluted during its passage across the ocean, that would be.

 

No, once again you miss the point.

 

Dilution is when you fart in an auditorium, and claim it's no big deal because the auditorium is big. No doubt there is dilution going on with the plume; it's spreading out. But that's not what is being argued.

 

The activity in the plume is much smaller than background of other isotopes. The analogy here is a fart in a rendering plant. The smell is already much, much worse, so the fart barely registers. It's drowned out by the existing smell.

 

Do you not understand the difference?

[John Cuthber]

Oh, dude.

Apparently I have to repeat this point, made five or six times now, in greater detail: when I quote something, link something, present observations of fact, etc etc etc, they are in service of my posting - evidence for the argument, examples of the observation, that kind of thing. If you don't pay any attention to them, or you don't bother to follow the argument or register the observation or whatever, you run the risk of asking for evidence like that. And by now you'll get no sympathy from me.

 

 

How about you give up on this tactic, and address the concerns of the thread.

 

Alternatively, you could just let other people mull the thread topic over in peace.

 

I'm still waiting for you to show the evidence that we were ignorant of something.

And I don't plan to drop the tactic of asking people to support their assertions.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Overtone

 

Yet again the staff are having to intervene - we will not accept you calling other members arrogant or ignorant; you will not be warned about this again. Apart from this rule infraction, which I reiterate we will not tolerate, I must also note that yet again this thread is another of a series in which you seem to have painted yourself into a corner and resorted to accusations of lack of rigour, imputations of fallacious reasoning, and simply harranging those who disagree with you.

 

Do not continue to insult members. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread.

 

[overtone]

 

 

Allow me to continue your line of thought. I think I'm pretty good with it now:

You aren't. You aren't even close. You are completely and consistently wrong about it. Every post I have made here in response to you includes a failed attempt to correct your errors in the matter, your slanders of my posting, and your false claims regarding my "line of thought".

Like this:

 

7) Due to the lack of relevant data...

In the presence of known and established hazard.

 

8) Because not all organisms have been studied...

When almost none of the relevant organisms or ecosystems have been studied or are now being monitored.

 

9) Since we don't know enough...

Since we don't know specifically what we need to know, we don't even know what that is, and we have nothing remotely approaching an adequate body of knowledge in the entire arena at issue - -

 

10) We can't conclude this based on limited evidence we have...

We can't simply presume the nonexistence of what quite possibly exists. We need argument and counter-evidence, to do that.

 

No doubt there is dilution going on with the plume; it's spreading out. But that's not what is being argued. - -

The activity in the plume is much smaller than background of other isotopes. - -

So?

 

Do you not understand the difference?

I understood and have replied to exactly that matter. Several times now. From at least two points of view. Since it first came up. Throughout this thread.

I have quit retyping and re-arguing at length, as if responding to good faith posts, and these days content myself with the word "So?", but if you are interested it's all up there in the stuff about bioconcentration and bioaccumulation and exposure regimes and sediment sequestration and ecosystem complexity and lost effluent the lack of reassurance from the open water plume's now greatly diluted cesium content (relative to the potassium, relative to harmful exposure to people, relative to the volume of the Pacific Ocean, whatever, in the posts above which are not mine) which is in fact the core of your posting and John's posting and so forth. You can read all about it in the many posts above.

Meanwhile, this is the level of argument of the people who think there is no reasonable possibility of serious ecosystem damage from the Fukushima emissions into the Pacific Ocean:

 

Look, here's what I posted: " - - - - you don't have any adequate bodies of research into the many and complex ecosystems of the Pacific Ocean to point to, and that's because there aren't any. So you are posting some rudimentary investigations - - - ". Why didn't the phrase "and that's because there aren't any" register as an assertion of mine?

I have no idea why you re-iterate that. Do you want to keep your argumentum ad ignorantiam going?

 

If you want to prove you position find proper evidence because that's how science works. I'm not saying "There will be no ecological consequences", do I? I'm just saying that "Based on scientific peer-reviewed evidence the likelihood of major damage is low".

 

Oh, well, maybe so, but if organisms in the middle of the food chain accumulate radiocaesium and it doesn't lead to increased concentrations along the food chain then it's not a damage to the entire ecosystem, but just to several specific organisms.

 

2) You have to analyze all the potentially affected food chains - most have not even been traced.

Again, argumentum ad ignorantiam. How many of those do you have stocked? Science doesn't work like that, it's approximation by default. No scientific theory ever claimed to have 100% of related phenomena investigated.

It's not just that poster. It's the lot of you. That's your argument: the open water concentration of the fraction of cesuim we have tracked has been diluted to a very low level, there is no evidence of serious Pacific Ocean ecosystem damage from the Fukushima emissions, therefore it's not a serious concern.

It's too bad that anyone measured the cesium uptake in the bottom feeding commercial fish near Fukushima - without that evidence, the Japanese could have gone back to fishing months ago, free of concern. Right?

[swansont]

So?

 

I understood and have replied to exactly that matter. Several times now. From at least two points of view. Since it first came up. Throughout this thread.

So why do you keep arguing about dilution when the argument is not about dilution? That's NOT responding as if you understand the argument.

 

Even asking "so?" is an indication that you don't understand the argument. (only that it must be wrong because you disagree, which is not a valid argument)

 

If it was a valid concern, you must also argue against people getting on an airplane, visiting (or living in)high-altitude places, or eating bananas, because those are also activities that give a small incremental dose above the normal background levels. Because everyone in Denver is dead from radiation, or something (which they aren't because I just checked)

[overtone]

 

 

So why do you keep arguing about dilution when the argument is not about dilution? That's NOT responding as if you understand the argument.

Even asking "so?" is an indication that you don't understand the argument.

 

 

If it was a valid concern, you must also argue against people getting on an airplane, visiting (or living in)high-altitude places, or eating bananas, because those are also activities that give a small incremental dose above the normal background levels. Because everyone in Denver is dead from radiation, or something (which they aren't because I just checked)

Six pages in, and that.

 

Ok, audience, for ten points: what does this poster think I've been arguing in this thread, and why do they think that?

 

And since it is clearly impossible to get people like that to read what I post and respond to its actual content, is there any way to get them to ignore my posting and address the thread topic on their own?

[John Cuthber]

I'm still waiting for you to show the evidence that we were ignorant of something.

And I don't plan to drop the tactic of asking people to support their assertions.

[swansont]

Six pages in, and that.

 

Ok, audience, for ten points: what does this poster think I've been arguing in this thread, and why do they think that?

 

And since it is clearly impossible to get people like that to read what I post and respond to its actual content, is there any way to get them to ignore my posting and address the thread topic on their own?

Well, there's this:

 

You were attempting to dismiss the potential for serious Pacific Ocean ecosystem damage - the thread topic - by claiming that the Fukushima emissions were so diluted in the ocean's volume as to be presumably harmless.

 

You have made, also, several other bunkum reassurance claims in this thread (that potassium and cesium are not ecologically distinguished, say).

We hope for the best. We have reason to hope, even. But we don't know. We dump that much concentrated bad stuff into an ocean largely unstudied, lose track of most of it, and end up resting our reassurances on dilution factors wishfully estimated from a few thousand samples of what we can find and get at, we wont be surprised if things go wrong somewhere, somehow. If twenty years from now we turn up a disaster in some critical organism's critical larvae nursery, say, it's going to be sad and disappointing, but it's not going to be a shock from the blue. Right?

The open water dissolved cesium diluted during its passage across the ocean, that would be.

 

But by all means, continue to insist that you aren't discussing dilution.

[John Cuthber]

Ok, audience, for ten points: what does this poster think I've been arguing in this thread, and why do they think that?

 

And since it is clearly impossible to get people like that to read what I post and respond to its actual content,

OK, let's start with what you believe..

You say "Or to ask the question from the other pov: why would anyone presume that level of dilution on that scale in the open ocean was harmless? "

Tacitly, you believe that we are making that presumption. And the answer is that it's not a presumption. We know how radioactive the sea is and we know that the change is very small- far less than the natural variation.

You believe that "A lot of the radioactive stuff put out by Fukushima has vanished. "

Which isn't credible; we may not know where it is, but it certainly has not vanished; it's still there.

You think things like this

" Why are you assuming the extra radiation is in the form of potassium isotopes?" even though I made it clear that I didn't think that.

Ditto for "Why are you assuming the concentration is even throughout the plume? "

You think that bioaccumulation is the important thing

"even with the prospect of oceanic bioaccumulation?"

​when, in fact it's differential bioaccumulation that matters.

You don't know what an assumption is

"So it is, in fact, an assumption. You have some reasons ("actual facts") for making it"

If it's based on facts it's not an assumption; it's a deduction.

 

One of the more bizarre things you believe is that central park is in the ocean; the only posts that used Sv were about land based exposure yet you said

". (are millisieverts, which are cslibrated for particular biological setups, good units to use in measuring oceanic ecosystem radiation exposure, for example)".

you believed that this

"Strange, on 16 Mar 2015 - 12:24 PM, said:

 

 

(I am more than a little upset that so many people obsess over minute amounts of radiation while the thousands killed and displaced by a bloody big wave were almost instantly forgotten.)

Well said.

Moontanman, on 16 Mar 2015 - 2:06 PM, said:

There are naturally radioactive places on the earth 250 mSv per year compared to the safe limit of 20 mSv per set by the nuclear regulatory commission.

 

http://webecoist.mom...oactive-places/

Thanks for that. I was wondering where to go on my holidays."

was a dismissal of risk. My comment about a holiday venue isn't a dismissal of risk, it's an assessment that the risk, though present, is small. I'd be much more likely to be killed by something else than by a week or two there.

And so on, at length

Then you say " it is clearly impossible to get people like that to read what I post and respond to its actual content,"

Well, we clearly did.

We read what you said, and we commented on it.

And I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that it's us who are showing ignorance here.

What have we said that is wrong?

Edited April 18, 2015 by John Cuthber

[overtone]

I've browsed through the entire thread to check your evidence and so far you have linked 4 sources.

Which puts me four up on anyone else, as far as my argument goes.

 

 

But by all means, continue to insist that you aren't discussing dilution.

I'm not insisting on that. You're what, 0 for 5 now, in telling me what I've been posting?

 

 

 

Tacitly, you believe that we are making that presumption. And the answer is that it's not a presumption.

Nothing tacit about it. You are making that presumption. You have reasons for making it, is all, which I have observed are invalid.

 

You cannot obtain ecosystem reassurance from the current dilution of the open water plume, the dilution of the cesium in the water of the plume (relative to anything - potassium, lethal dose to people, volume of the ocean, you've tried them all) without presuming a good deal about which you know almost nothing. Actually, less than nothing - you are in possession of several illusions, such as the safety of presuming an equivalence of potassium and cesium in biological systems, the safety of presuming absence of any role for bioaccumulation in the history of the plume, the safety of presuming irrelevance of the lost cesium from Fukushima, and so forth, which would have to be unlearned before beginning to acquire positive knowledge.

 

 

"(I am more than a little upset that so many people obsess over minute amounts of radiation while the thousands killed and displaced by a bloody big wave were almost instantly forgotten.)

 

Well said."

 

 

You repeat that?

Well said in some thread where people were obsessing about minute amounts if radiation while forgetting about the thousands killed by the tsunami. That would be some other, much different, thread. Here, it's completely irrelevant. Repeating it is trolling.

All discussions of ecosystem damage from anything involve talking about beings other than people and harms other than those suffered by people. If discussing such matters upset anyone, threads on such topic should be unread by them. The thread title is clear. Like a discussion of the Nazi breeding project for recreating extinct animals in pursuit of noble Aryan hunting experiences, the topic is going to exist in a larger context in which it must seem essentially trivial - at least at first.

 

We read what you said, and we commented on it.

No, you didn't. You commented on crap you made up in the first place, and most of your "comment" was Foxqueries. Essentially nothing I have posted here, relative to the thread topic, has been addressed - starting with the very first point, that one cannot assume ecosystem effects from exposure to only the kinds of smooth, even, and very dilute distributions of Fukushima emissions one measures in cesium during large scale surveys of open and well-mixed water many months after the event.

Instead, we get this:

 

My comment about a holiday venue isn't a dismissal of risk, it's an assessment that the risk, though present, is small.

C'mon. You really, really, have to want to avoid talking about the content of a post, to reach like that.

And it's got company: look at the guy who wants to claim he's not talking about "dilution" when he talks about comparative uptake ratios of cesium and potassium from open water concentration of each. Or this beauty:

 

If it's based on facts it's not an assumption; it's a deduction.

 

An assumption is something one has assumed. An assumption justified by reasoning from fact, or an assumption based on bad reasoning from error taken for fact, whatever, remains an assumption. Some assumptions are safe, others are not. The difference is not only in the relevance and solidity of the supporting "facts", but in the validity of the argument by which one gets from those facts to the assumption. One can employ deduction, induction, all manner of reasoning, to justify making an assumption. If these reasonings are abysmally deficient, say bad logic based in errors of fact, the assumption is not justified. It is then revealed to be unsafe - an assumption one should not rely upon.

Edited April 22, 2015 by overtone

[pavelcherepan]

overtone, you've been asked long ago to provide evidence. You haven't done that so far and it seems to me that you can't do so and now, having nothing of significance to offer to the actual topic of discussion, you keep arguing about wording and making straw men. Your idea is filled with logical holes, fallacies and you can barely be falsified, because there's no evidence.

 

Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!

W.Pauli

(It's not only not right, it's not even wrong!)

 

 

[John Cuthber]

 

You cannot obtain ecosystem reassurance from the current dilution of the open water plume, the dilution of the cesium in the water of the plume (relative to anything - potassium, lethal dose to people, volume of the ocean, you've tried them all) without presuming a good deal about which you know almost nothing. Actually, less than nothing - you are in possession of several illusions, such as the safety of presuming an equivalence of potassium and cesium in biological systems, the safety of presuming absence of any role for bioaccumulation in the history of the plume, the safety of presuming irrelevance of the lost cesium from Fukushima, and so forth, which would have to be unlearned before beginning to acquire positive knowledge.

 

You have overlooked a bit of data so obvious that we have all assumed it without saying we were doing so.

I did say something related to it in an earlier post.

OK, I apologise for not stating this explicitly before; I didn't think it needed pointing out, but, since you insist:

The Fukushima ecosystem is still there.

 

 

So, what we are saying about that diluted splodge is not "it couldn't cause damage" but two things

" it didn't cause (much) damage" and "it won't cause further damage",

[swansont]

I'm not insisting on that. You're what, 0 for 5 now, in telling me what I've been posting?

 

Then that makes you oh-for-whatever in clarifying your position. How about doing that, instead of screeching about how we're all not "getting" what you're saying?

 

You could include how when you say dilution you don't mean dilution, in all of that.

[Strange]

You cannot obtain ecosystem reassurance from the current dilution of the open water plume, the dilution of the cesium in the water of the plume (relative to anything - potassium, lethal dose to people, volume of the ocean, you've tried them all) without presuming a good deal about which you know almost nothing.

 

This is you not discussing dilution.

 

 

Like a discussion of the Nazi breeding project for recreating extinct animals in pursuit of noble Aryan hunting experiences, the topic is going to exist in a larger context in which it must seem essentially trivial - at least at first.

 

Does invoking Godwin's Law mean automatic thread closure? It might be kinder to put this thread out of its misery now.

[swansont]

Which puts me four up on anyone else, as far as my argument goes.

 

I really don't think you want to rely on "my citations list is longer than yours". First of all, others have linked to supporting info, so you are not four up on anyone else. Secondly, most of your links support what others have been saying, and as you seem to be in disagreement with everyone else, that means they don't support your argument, whatever that is.

 

For example, regarding the uptake of Cs vs the other alkalis your pubmed link says "Fungi showed a greater preference for Rb and K than Cs" which means Cs uptake is less of a concern that K. That means it's even less of a concern than the position that the assumption that there would be a simple substitution, which is what was being argued, and what you disagreed with.

 

Your link to "Impacts of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plants on Marine Radioactivity" says "Although some radionuclides are significantly elevated, dose calculations suggest minimal impact on marine biota or humans due to direct exposure in surrounding ocean waters" which something you have been disagreeing with.

 

You provided this link http://www.cfact.org/2014/01/07/true-facts-about-ocean-radiation-and-the-fukushima-disaster/and called it " a blog synopsis with an acceptable tone of voice" and it agrees with what everyone else has been saying. The positions you are arguing against. Then later on you … well, quite frankly, I can't adequately summarize your subsequent contortions.

 

The bottom line is that I don't think anyone knows what you are really arguing, because you have not made yourself clear, and you contradict yourself from post to post. That's on you, not on others.