No mention of testing for radiation, easy to harvest samples.
They toss out "El Nino" as the cause, and then do not even attempt even once to support that hypothesis.
The animal was starving, its fat layer was 66% down from where it should be.
This "El Nino" Carbon dioxide as a pollutant is going beyond just sickening. It's criminal.
Info on Blue Whale
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/whales/species/Bluewhale.shtml
Blue whales are filter feeders, krill and plankton.
Funny how that is a recurring theme. I wonder if Kenny Boy is putting the Plankton under the microscope.
Speaking of-- just broke out my Microscope its a pro grade Omano 1600x scope...never been used, but bro is going to run the learning curve while I am out on solar.
The bottom of the food chain is where we need to be looking. Those things replicate quickly and form the basis for the food chain. replicating quickly means, more likely to be affected by radiation and heavy metals.
Emails of Scientists referred to in lead articles above:
Prof. Bruce Mate, Marine Mammal Director at Oregon State University’s Hatfield Marine Science Center,
Email: bruce.mate@oregonstate.edu
Calum Stevenson, Ocean Shores Specialist with the Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department,
Email: calum.stevenson@oregon.gov
stock out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hundred TON blue whale that 'could have been killed by El Nino' washes up in Oregon
- The 78-ft long blue whale was dead for two weeks before it washed up
- Scientists believe that it may have become weakened by this year's El Nino
- The weather phenomena is predicted to be one of the strongest on record
- Orcas and sharks believed to have attacked the whale while it was weak
- Researchers are stripping blubber and flesh to put the skeleton on display
It would have to have been a massive radiation field to cause an acute radiation dose of epic proportions to cause a radiation-induced death. This hypothesis of yours has really no merit, no scientific basis, no real validation. I think if you put forth this hypothesis then you should be able to back it up either with validated data or solid science. I see nothing in your missive to suggest otherwise. Ridiculous assertion.
ReplyDeleteI presented no such hypothesis of an acute radiation field.
DeleteNor would anyone of sound mind even conjure up such a though.
For a PhD you are pretty stupid.
There is no reason to think it was a stochadtic effect so by default all you have is the acute argument. Now who's being the fool? It seems you dont know radiation effects at all.
DeleteStochastic
DeleteThere is a lot of stuff going on in that ocean
DeleteDiatoms Marginalized Cyanobacteria Forcing Them Into Specific Niches (e.g., high-light, low Fe, low N, low P
stock here: Dud presents some good information below, don't let the German throw you, lol.
I have long been of a belief that the Fukushima radiation in the Pacific has been a last straw which caused a tipping point in the balance of organizms, and in all likelihood, a mutation or 3 occurred which gave some small organisms an advantage enough that they would marginalize other species.
the research belows flows along these same lines.
- See more at: http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2015/11/diatoms-marginalized-cyanobacteria.html#sthash.2sli58oB.dpuf
The radiation effects are benign. You have really no validation at each step in tge process. Your thesis is conjecture. The onus is on you to prove your point and not throw stuff against the wall hoping something sticks.
DeleteMass Mortality among Rocky Shore Invertebrates across 100 km of Northeastern Pacific Coastline- Peer Reviewed Article
ReplyDeletehttp://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/11/09/mass-mortality-among-rocky-shore-invertebrates-across-100-km-of-northeastern-pacific-coastline-peer-reviewed-article/
No direct evidence to support your assertion. Butterfly effect has more merit.
ReplyDeleteLoose Nuke: you have thrown yourself against the wall via your own words: "The radiation effects are benign." Your thesis is stupid conjecture, infested with hubris. The onus is on you to prove your point.
ReplyDeleteAs an expert in rad effects, I can show where the onset of adverse health effects where lymphocyte depletion occurs, about 50 cGy. Now the onus is on you to show that one lone radioactive atom did in fact cause the effect you claim. The onus is always on those making the claim and the burden of proof always lies with those making the claim. You cant just make a hypothesis without validation. This is the weakness in stocks Fuku 3 mod crit claim.
DeleteIn correct asshole, you need to prove your stuff is safe, and everything else says it is NOT
DeleteAsk those mothers who gave birth to babies with no brains, or half a skull.
No. You need to prove its dangerous. One single solitary radioactive atom has not been proven to lead to the effects you claim. The onus is on you else there is no argument. Ive been waiting for you to start defending the "no safe dosers" when their is more natural radiation coarsing through their veins than they care to admit. I can prove no lymphocyte depletion below 50 cGy. Read Dr. Goan's papers. Then get back to me. You cant prove birth defects by exclusive radiation which pales compared to fetal alcohol syndrome. You think there should be no disease no death in this eorld. Pack your bags for that guilt trip.
DeleteEverything dead kind of serves as proof...you think El Nino can kill everything? Like the food this big animal consumes? Radiation kills the little fish first then the big fish starve. More humans are likely to meet the same fate! No fish left in the Pacific? Three billion people starve just like the whale. No need to find high rad readings, they may even be "normal". Dead is dead.
Deletea humble,wise man once shared with me a saying.he shared it with few but now i share it with you."there are two types of people that live on this planet we call mother earth.there are humans and there are earthlings"we do not need technology to tell us what they want us to know.mother nature shows us in no uncertain terms.
ReplyDeletethank you.i am not known for this chat stuff,infact you wont be hearing much from me at all.lm a more outdoors type of bloke.however i have had a truely informative lifes journey with lots of purposeful redirection which for most part was out of my control but very purposeful.
ReplyDeleteCheck out the Hawaii outdoors video I posted on the latest post.
Delete