Something Is Killing Life All Over The Pacific Ocean

[agent46]

Why is there so much death and disease among sea life living near the west coast of North America right now? Could the hundreds of tons of highly radioactive water that are being released into the Pacific Ocean from Fukushima every single day have anything to do with it?

When I wrote my last article about Fukushima, I got a lot of heat for being “alarmist” and for supposedly “scaring” people unnecessarily. I didn’t think that an article about Fukushima would touch such a nerve, but apparently there are some people out there that really do not want anyone writing about this stuff.

Right now, massive numbers of fish and sea creatures are dying in the Pacific Ocean. In addition, independent tests have shown that significant levels of cesium-137 are in a very high percentage of the fish that are being caught in the Pacific and sold in North America. Could this have anything to do with the fact that the largest nuclear disaster in the history of mankind has been constantly releasing enormous amounts of radioactive material into the Pacific Ocean for more than two years? I don’t know about you, but to me this seems to be a question that is worth asking.

Since I wrote my last article, major news outlets have reported that large numbers of sea stars living off of the west coast of North America appear to be “melting“…If scientists don’t know why this is happening, perhaps there is an unusual explanation for this phenomenon.

http://csglobe.com/something-killing-life-pacific-ocean/

[RobertEarl]

2. Just got this memo from .gov:

Hi, this is your government's response to the current situation in the Pacific.

We do apologize to you. Your government has been a failure. We have failed to keep people like you from polluting the ocean. You have dumped oil, pesticides, plastics and gawd knows what all into the ocean. We could not stop you. If we had, nearly everyone of you would have been arrested, so we just stopped trying.

So now we have a polluted ocean. And just as the granola headed, tree-hugging environmentalists warned, things die in polluted waters.

Now there is that nuclear plant in Japan that is adding something to the ocean that we have never had the pleasure of dealing with, before now.

Frankly, we do not know what to do besides putting everyone in jail, so we have to decided to just say: Screw it. You are on your own, suckers. Live with it!

[dougolat]

12. ++ nt

[Nay]

15. Thank you. Exactly how I feel as well. nt

[ReRe]

92. Exactly

... me three.

[daleanime]

3. Kick....

[JNelson6563]

4. Bookmarking!

Great resource you've linked to there! Thank you.

Julie

[arthritisR_US]

5. You are not being alarmist, people need to wake up! nt

[Logical]

45. Read more facts, react less! nt

[DocMac]

91. Would you expand those thoughts?

TY.

[Le Taz Hot]

107. And do what exactly . . .?

[longship]

6. Definitely not Fukushima.

No matter what people say. The science is fairly definitive on this.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

9. how many parts per million of radioactive material could make it through the WHOLE PACIFIC?

people need to wrap their head around some numbers. They probably get more radiation from the sun than from Fukishima via Pacific. oy!

[longship]

10. That's it.

People do not understand diffusion. Either that or they think the Pacific Ocean is a backyard pond.

They also misstate the actual amount of radiation actually being leaked into the world's largest ocean.

Fukushima is a huge disaster. But the Pacific Ocean is under threat by a lot more insidious things than Fukushima.

[chervilant]

11. Or, from eating a common banana!!!

[Scootaloo]

25. Well, fact is that radiation wouldn't make starfish melt

Now, certainly irradiated water wouldn't help 'em any, but there's something else going on here, and whatever it is is scary enough on its own.

[Logical]

42. Wow, we agree! nt

[kenfrequed]

105. Well... actually

I would need to see more information to be convinced of EITHER point of view.

1) For one thing you do not need to diffuse it throughout the entire ocean, it merely needs to end up in places where ocean life is more concentrated.

2) The current patterns are not going to diffuse this completely evenly thorughout the entire ocean. Irradiated cesium is going to deposit itself along those currents to varying degrees. Whether the places these isotopes are getting deposited are in places where ocean life is more concentrated is a question I would ask.

3) On the other side of the question, has anyone questioned the impact of ocean acidification caused by excessive CO2? This could be a better explanation for the loss in life. (and in many ways it is actually more depressing-see permian extinction.)

4) Back to the impact of radiation, it actually could be having a subtle effect on plankton. If the radiation were strong enough to wreck the lowest rung on the ecosystem then the effects would snowball.

5) Of course, there is no reason this couldn't be caused by CO2-acidification either.

In summation, I do not think that ocean dispersion is a good argument against Fukashima having an effect. We can be absolutely certain that it will have Some effect and any argument to the contrary is somewhat suspect. Absolute alarmism about it isn't productive without a good chain of evidence.

Go back to your respective corners and rethink your assumptions.

[Electric Monk]

134. So your solution for polution is dilution. I think I've heard something like that said before...

statistically insignificant, hahaha

lolz...

[MyNameGoesHere]

13. Sounds great

so we now have a solution to nuclear waste storage, dump it in the ocean. Because it is safe. I was worried that we couldn't find place to dump it.

[longship]

21. Sorry, that's a straw man.

Nobody is recommending that we dump nuclear waste in the ocean. So your straw man won't work here. And there is no evidence that nuclear waste is getting into the ocean from Fukushima.

There is some water, but that isn't nuclear waste. And BTW, it is not enough to pose a danger except in the immediate vicinity of the power plant. So there is no need for people to set their hair on fire.

Make no mistake. This is a huge catastrophe. But it does not help when people just make shit up about it. And that's what's happening.

[stonecutter357]

26. So your straw man won't work here. And there is no evidence that nuclear waste is getting into the o

BULL^^^^
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Japan_suggests_dumping_Fukushima_waste_at_sea_as_radiation_hits_lethal_levels
TEPCO says other locations at the plant have readings of 70–230 millisieverts per hour. Waste water totalling more than 300,000 tons has already been collected at the site; more is being stored at a rate of 400 tons per day. An unknown quantity of radioactive groundwater is flowing into the sea.

[longship]

31. And every measurement shows that the impact on the Pacific is immeasurable.

And I do mean every one of them.

People do understand that the Pacific Ocean is thousands of miles in every dimension, don't they? It is also the deepest ocean. I presume people also understand the concept of dilution and diffusion.

So not only are claims that Fukushima is causing ocean wide mayhem falsified by all the evidence, it lacks all plausibility in principle.

One doesn't figure these things out by just making shit up. One does it by doing science. And the science does not support anything like what is being suggested by those apparently so willing to set their hair on fire about this.

[heaven05]

70. ??????

Last edited Sun Nov 3, 2013, 01:52 PM - Edit history (1)

10 years from now, I hope I'm here to read what garbage you'll be saying then. Alarmist no. Realist? Goddamn right. Get real. Who's science? People who's science has one purpose and that being and having a vested interest in keeping the masses in the dark and 'calm'. about any impending harm to us and sea life. Get real. Anyone with a third grade science understanding and a passing knowledge of nuclear issues that are dangerous to human life sees what going on with Tepco's lies and lack of candor and this bullsht about "in principle" is NOT in fact. Don't tell me not to worry about human incompetence and stupidity killing us ALL off. geez

[longship]

73. "Who's science?"

I just do not understand why any person would want to portray this thing worse than it is? Like it's not already bad enough.

BTW, that should be "Whose science?"

The answer is: there is only one science. The only arbiter of truth in the universe is the universe itself. Nature dictates the facts. Humans make measurements and derive models (theories) from those measurements.

And all the measurements from Fukushima across the ocean indicate that the leaks are having minimum to no effects.

That's because the Pacific Ocean is the largest fucking ocean on the planet. It's 4,900 miles across, for Christ sakes.

I am done.

Believe what you want.

[heaven05]

100. okay, if you say so, only because you say so.........

thanks on the whose's. I forget sometimes. But I'm working on it. Hope you not deluded.

[bluedeathray]

96. How do currents

Factor into diffusion? And into constant exposure to unevenly diffused substances?

Not trying to stir shit. I'm really asking.

[drynberg]

104. This is wishful thinking, that is flawed deeply

First, oceans flow in currents, right? So, there will be areas much "hotter" than others. Plus we are talking years of millions of gallons per day of highly radioactive water flowing directly into the Pacific. Then there's the myth of dilution of radioactivity. A given amount of radioactivity causes the same damage regardless of the size of the container. Look it up. I'm quoting Fairewinds.com which I hope many view. I wish it were different, but it's not about me or you.

[longship]

106. Well, so far it's low enough that it cannot be measured.

[One_Life_To_Give]

109. 3-5% higher than before

The current measurements in the Eastern Pacific are running 3-5% higher than they were in the first part of 21st century. That level has actually been steadily decreasing since the 1970's when it peaked following the Nuclear Testing in the Pacific. Or in other words, it was worse in those years following our Bikini Island Tests and those of our Allies and Adversaries with the advent of the Atmospheric Test ban.

[bahrbearian]

19. Dilution is the solution, Yeah right.

[longship]

22. Actually , it is. By definition.

Solvent + Solute = Solution.

The idea with Fukushima is to minimize the amount of solute that leaks into the solvent (the Pacific Ocean). That's what they are doing the best they can under the circumstances.

There is no danger currently from what has leaked so far, no matter how much some people set their hair on fire about it.

The science is pretty robust on these matters.

Make no mistake. This is a very serious situation. One should not minimize how serious it is. But people are making shit up and that does nobody any good.

[drynberg]

102. RADIATION DOES NOT FOLLOW THE RULES OF DILUTION, AS A RELEASE OF A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF RADIATION

Does the same damage, regardless of the size of the container. Look it up, I ain't makin' it up. Of course we should be very cautious of the huge amount of highly radioactive water constantly flowing into the Pacific from Fukushima, and testing of course should be happening...in light of it not happening it would be fool hardy to eat anything from this untested body of water. Ignorance ain't really bliss, afterall.

[NoOneMan]

76. Homeopaths believe that dilution on makes it stronger

Oh noes!

[Zorra]

24. Could you please post some links to where it says science proves that it is definitely not

Fukishima that is causing this problem?

Thanks!

[longship]

28. Sorry, I do not have the burden of proof here.

One cannot prove a negative.

It is rather a burden on the people setting their hair on fire and blaming every anomaly in the Pacific Ocean on Fukushima to provide citations where any causative connection exists to Fukushima.

And, BTW. Correlation does not imply causation. That would be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Science is a tough bitch. She doesn't allow one to just make shit up.

Plus, all the measurements in the Pacific, and I do mean all of them (except in the immediate Fukushima area) show levels to be below ambient levels.

So any claim for great harm has a tall cliff to climb.

I will restate my position here. Fukushima is a horrible disaster. But it does no fucking good to make shit up about it, or to run around with ones hair on fire.

We'll solve the problems. And hopefully we will not be making more nuclear power plants. Sadly, those hopes will likely be dashed.

[Zorra]

32. You made an absolute statement: "Defiinitely not Fukushima".

That's a totally unscientific statement in and of itself.

So I have no reason to believe you have any real information that it is definitely not Fukushima.

I don't know for sure if it is Fukushima or not, and, with all due respect, neither do you.

[longship]

37. Actually, yes I do.

From plausibility. The amount of water Fukushima has leaked into the Pacific is immeasurably trivial compared the volume of water in the Pacific. Plus, I actually studied in high school chemistry so I understand the solution equations. And I studied at university when I studied nuclear physics.

That's all I need to know to know that many of these claims are over reactions to what is a scary situation. The claims have no plausibility on the basic science alone.

If there is any science that disagrees with my opinion, I would gladly change it. I have no ideological dog in this hunt. I merely wish for people to not make shit up, or to believe made up shit.

[Rex]

41. Well you said every study is on your side, but cannot site one single example?

I would love to believe you, but I need to read the facts that you stand behind first. Until then, I will believe nothing told to me without evidence.

[longship]

46. See post #30.

I'm on an iPhone (all I have here). I will try to comply with your request just the same.

[Rex]

49. Okay thanks! Take your time.

Don't worry about it if you are busy, just if you have some spare time. I understand how diffusion works and would like to see exactly what it is you are talking about. I know this is a serious problem, we both agree on that...but would like to read more on what you are talking about since it is rarely presented here on DU.

Thanks!

[longship]

50. Some facts. (Updated)

Google is not ones friend on this issue. All citations are sensationalistic and not backed by any science.

I went to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, an anti-nuclear weapons group of physicists.

Here is a link:
Suzuki's Fukushima's Updates just the facts.

Unfortunately, the reason why so many people are setting their hair on fire about this is that it is just not being covered in the media, except for the hair on fire stuff.

Next stop, science Bloggers. I don't know what to Google for that.


Here's a report from U Hawaii which takes down a report from China:

from HuffPo I know, HuffPo. Read it anyway. It matches what I've heard from other science sources and from the basic science.

[Rex]

51. Thanks for the link I will read it over...okay I have to ask

and I apologize for being ignorant of this in the first place. Can radiation still be attached to water as it evaporates and enters the clouds? IOW, can it rain radioactive water back down upon the land? I read up to the part about heavy rains being a culprit in higher readings and now that has me wondering. I know of acid rain, that is why I ask.

Does all this information come solely from TEPCO or do we have the IAEA there too monitoring the levels of radiation? I keep reading, "TEPCO said" over and over and wonder if there are any independent agencies there too?

EDIT - Thanks for the link to the Huff! That is the information I was looking for. I just don't trust TEPCO to tell us anything accurate. We always will need independent sources to verify their claims imo.

[longship]

56. Okay, I'll try.

The Cesium and Iodine is in solution with the water, so it will not evaporate with the water. Just ask any distiller about that. At any rate, one of the cesium isotopes and the iodine have short half lives. The Cs 137 is 30 years, which is an issue. Other isotopes are still very low concentrations.

Tritium may be an issue as it makes heavy water, but I have not seen any indication other than it has been detected at the Fukushima site. (Not unexpected.) it should be watched carefully.

Heavier isotopes, fission products, have also been observed, but they will not all be soluble in water. (Not sure, but I don't think so.) They would be problems for site clean up, however.

In short, there's nothing to indicate that the Pacific is in any danger from Fukushima. The radiation in prey fish would not be more dangerous than the mercury in the same. In fact, it is such a low level that flying across the country in an airliner would expose a person more.

Remember, it's all about dose and time of exposure and we are bombarded with radioactivity every second of every day just because we live in the universe.

[Rex]

57. Thanks!

I hope the Japanese people don't have to tend with any more natural disasters...this year alone has kept me on edge.

[longship]

58. And Fukushima is going to take a long time to clean up.

This shit ain't easy, which should be a warning to all.

You are welcome.

[drynberg]

103. Clean up? Only thousands of years will dissipate this assault on every organism it contacts...very

Sad and scary since dozens of very identical (GE) reactors are currently running in our very own nation.

[Zorra]

68. Those links prove nothing at all. Just google 4 plain words: radiation in the Pacific

-and see what you come up with.

I've heard enough bullshit from the nuclear energy industry over the years that I generally believe the opposite of what they say.

Tepco has continually lied about the facts regarding Fukushima.

That Huffington Post article was like a "run along folks, everything is fine, nothing to see here, move along now" meme.

And again, I'm not saying that Fukushima is killing all the life in the Pacific ~ it may or may not be ~ what I'm saying is that you are claiming you know for a fact that is isn't, when you have no real possibility of knowing because you only have miniscule fractions of data relative to a previously unresearched event, some hearsay, some corporate/government spin, and speculation based on incomplete data regarding Fukushima's effects on life in the sea.

[longship]

71. It may or may not be?

Please. It's not.

There is no plausibility for such a thing. The science does not support such a thing.

But you believe whatever you want.

I'll take science.

Do you really want this to be worse than it already is?

I don't.

[rwsanders]

65. But you're assuming even distribution, which is incorrect...

High school chemistry doesn't cut it here. That is why it isn't enough to get a job with NOAA. There is a new field out there called oceanography.
In oceanography you learn about differences in temperature, salinity, and things called currents.
In biology you learn about things like bioaccumulation where compounds work their way through the food chain.
I haven't seen the data, but a dismissive attitude based on high school chemistry isn't going to pass as "scientific".

[longship]

67. Diffusion.

In general, the distance to the source is inversely proportional to the concentration.

Vancouver is about 4,900 miles from Japan. That's a whole lot of diffusion.

QED.

Is there a reason why somebody would want this to be worse than it is? Thank goodness the Pacific Ocean is so fucking huge. Fukushima is a horrible disaster, but thankfully life in the oceans should not be profoundly affected by it.

Why would people actually want it to be worse?

[Scuba]

75. No, they don't want it to be worse. But neither do they want it swept under the rug.

There are trust issues here, and the nuclear industry is generally not trusted, due to past behaviours. Clearly, the problems of Fukushima deserve more attention than they get in the US press, and attempts to minimize the problems are looked at skeptically.

[longship]

77. But the science community is pretty trustworthy.

And I don't blame people for not trusting TEPCO. A Japanese PM was replaced because of his equivocation about it.

But the academics, I trust. And they are the ones making many of the measurements.

The Univ of Hawaii physicists measuring the radiation in Hawaiian waters see basically normal background. That's a couple thousand miles closer to Japan than the West Coast.

Maybe many people just like to set their hair on fire.

[Chaco Dundee]

111. coincidence?

I am not convinced that all the dead seacreatures in the pacific are just a natural ocurence.if you were to ingest diluted rat poison every day,it will just take a little longer to croak on it.

[sabrina 1]

78. The burden is on the person making a claim. You said all scientific studies

agree that there is no threat from Fukishima. It should not be difficult to back that up with at least one link.

You say they are containing it 'the best the can'. Why can't they just stop it?

If they can't just stop it, it continues to be a threat. And I have not seen anyone, anywhere ever say it would be quite safe to have a Nuclear Meltdown result in contaminated material leaking into the ocean.

As far as I know, that is something to be avoided at all costs.

[longship]

81. Well, there is contaminated water leaking into the ocean.

That's known. It's basically the water soluble isotopes, Cs134, Cs137, and I131.

Cs134 has an 2 year half life. Iodine-131 has a very short half life, only 8 days -- no problem there. Cs137 has a 30 year half life, which is a problem. Thankfully, the Pacific is huge. One cannot ignore that fact, something a few people here, and the author of the article in the OP conveniently do ignore.

Also, one cannot ignore the measurements made by independent scientists which show little to no increases in radiation above the background rate.

The information in the OP is nothing but wild speculation. Science doesn't work that way. Thankfully neither does nature.

Thank you for your response.

[fasttense]

99. Oh my, you are using the exact same arguments cigarette corporations did.

Cigarettes do not cause lung cancer. You can't prove it, correlation is NOT causation. Just because people who smoke are more likely to die of lung cancer does not mean smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer.

By the way there are measurements of high radiation levels in the US here is a link. http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/10/radcast-radiation-readings-october-30th-2013 and here http://nonukesnw.wordpress.com/nw-geiger-counts/

"According to RadCast.org, radiation on the West Coast are now in “the fallout zone” - with readings spiking to 60 counts per minute in North Portland, Oregon, and 51 in Fresno, California. On the East Coast, Graham, North Carolina is averaging 38 counts per minute, with spikes in the high 50s, and readings in Upper St. Claire, Pennsylvania are about 40, with spikes of 54. Remember, RadCast.org reminds us that the alert level is 100 counts per minute, and they're monitoring daily to keep us informed." There are even higher readings of rain falls last month.

So be a denier, pretend there is no global warming, pretend there is no such thing as evolution, put your head in the sand all you want, it doesn't change the facts that Fukushima is a huge catastrophe to the environment and we will all suffer from radiation exposure because of it.

[Art_from_Ark]

138. Here is a link to Japanese statistics

that were compiled by the Ibaraki Prefectural (=State) Department of Fisheries and updated just two days ago about various types of fish that have been caught off the Pacific coast of Ibaraki (and in a few freshwater bodies as well). Ibaraki is a southern neighbor of Fukushima, and some Ibaraki fishing grounds are as little as 35 miles away from Fukushima Dai-ichi. Data are given in becquerels per kilogram. If the data begins with <検出せず>, then that means that the cesium was below the detectable limit. The column on the far right shows the total cesium concentration (Cs134 + Cs137). Interestingly, it seems that the highest levels of cesium were detected in freshwater fish, rather than ocean fish.

http://www.pref.ibaraki.jp/nourin/gyosei/pdf_housyanou_kensakekka/20131030.pdf

[SidDithers]

38. Sorry, science and DU don't mix...

GD is conspiracy central.

Sid

[longship]

39. Sadly, that's increasingly true.

Made up shit still pisses me off. The lack of science education in this country is profound. DU is not different from any other segment. We are not immune to ignorance here.

[The Traveler]

59. Well, not really. Your statement is too strong to be scientifically valid

You consider only dilution in your argument, apparently. The problem is that diffusion is not the only way contaminants can spread and get into the food chain. Many species of fish and cetaceans display a very wide range of travel and pass by the coast near Fukushima. Many of these critters consume critters that prefer to stay local in those contaminated waters. Similarly, small crustaceans and plankton are carried by the currents right through the hot zone and are at some point ingested by other creatures. Isotopes like strontium tend to get concentrated in the tissues of animals higher up on the food chain, etc. Given enough time, one may expect the entire food chain to become measurably contaminated. Now, don't ask me what's "enough time" ...

We just don't have good models to predict the rate at which radioactive contaminants will be carried into the food chain by those kinds of processes. Hell, we don't even have really good measurements of the concentrations of various isotopes showing up in the coastal waters. But there are just too many unknowns to state, without a lot of further study and observation, that biological distribution processes aren't a significant factor.

Now, please note I am NOT saying Fukushima's radiation is the big driver in what is going on in the Pacific. I, too, am skeptical about that. I am just pointing out that movements and feeding of living aquatic things provides another vector by which radioactive isotopes are going to be distributed and it could have a greater effect on the Pacific ocean ecosystem than we can readily predict.

Personally, I suspect that absorbed CO2 and consequent ocean acidity may be the single biggest factor at work here, but there are many other significant stresses on our oceans. Over fishing. The use of destructive trawling techniques. Fertilizer and pesticide runoff. Mercury from burning coal. Plastic. Other junk dumped into the oceans, intentionally or accidentally. Sure, dumping zillions of Becquerel's worth of radio actives into the waters off Fukushima doesn't help the situation ... but we have lots of suspects in this room, and to me their collusion appears more likely the cause.

I fear we may be seeing the beginnings of a cascading collapse of an entire ocean ecosystem ... the death of the Pacific. But I doubt there is a single cause. Fukushima is a huge mess, which is likely to get a lot worse before it gets better, but I doubt it is our culprit.

[longship]

60. Your points are well taken.

But I am not saying that there are not other mechanisms. I am merely responding to all the hysteria that has any anomaly in the Pacific Ocean automagically assigned to Fukushima.

For Christ sakes, there were people here saying that sea star problems off Vancouver Island were caused by Fukushima the other day. That's just nuts.

And by the way, radiation measurements in fish are still low. One is more in danger from mercury, or from taking an airliner from coast to coast. Still, it is a concern so the radiation is being watched closely. As it should be.

So far, all the science I've seen about this is worrying, but not catastrophic. We are in no danger of losing the Pacific environment from this. Except for maybe that adjoining Fukushima, and probably not permanently.

The clean up will take years, though.

[blackspade]

126. You've made some good points...

But I have to ask, can you provide some data to back up a few of your statements?
Specifically, you have used variants of this statement several times in this and other threads:

"And by the way, radiation measurements in fish are still low. One is more in danger from mercury, or from taking an airliner from coast to coast. Still, it is a concern so the radiation is being watched closely. As it should be."

The radiation levels that you are referring to in fish need to be quantified. What type of radiation, source, and fish species.
Without that, your comparisons with mercury and solar radiation are just your opinion.
Second, mercury is not a radioactive substance so I fail to see the comparative aspect here, unless you are making a case of long term lethality, which again needs to be quantified.
Finally, the amount of radiation from air travel needs some explanation. What dose of radiation per hour in the air are we looking at? What type of radiation is it? how does it compare with tissue absorbed radiation sources? Is it cumulative?

At what point does Fukushima become a pressing issue? What threshold do you think we need to cross before it becomes imperative to clean up? Should we just not worry at all about the radioactive water and just let it flow into the Pacific?

Sorry for all the questions, but I can't get my head around the idea that this isn't a slow motion disaster that could have a horrible impact in our lifetimes. And this on top of climate change.

[longship]

128. All I've read were media reports.

Some cited physicists. I am sorry that I didn't bookmark them. When I Google for them, all I get is crazy conspiracy theories. I wish that wasn't so.

What I've found I cited in another response.

Fukushima is a very pressing issue to me. But making shit up about it will not help. Nevertheless, that is what some people are doing. Why they would do such a thing I have no idea. It certainly does not help matters to spread unsubstantiated rumor.

The science on this must be open. That's the solution to nipping the craziness in the bud. The media is not helping. The fact that I cannot find the citations I read only a few days ago attests to the fact that this is not being covered responsibly. I guess it will take things going horribly wrong (as if that weren't already an issue) for the media to say something.

I am generally disgusted by it all. The reportage is rubbish or non-existent.

[RobertEarl]

135. What? Longship writes:

""All I've read were media reports......The reportage is rubbish or non-existent.""

So you have no science, or links to back up anything you said here?

And one thing you keyed in on was that this is just a local problem. Well, would the DoE Chief, Moniz convince you otherwise? Here's what he says:
"Just as the tragic event had global consequences, the success of the cleanup also has global significance. "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023909069#post27

[dtom67]

7. its the TPP.....

toxic for all ...

[Orrex]

8. Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

[zappaman]

14. LOL

You beat me to it!

[Saviolo]

16. Aw, geeze

That's the -last- thing we need, now!

Mind you, I imagine the Tea Partiers would probably love it, seeing as though they're all completely mad already. The gibbering insanity wouldn't even affect them when it washes over the world.

[longship]

43. They'd be the first to be eaten. So there's that we've got going for us. nt

[icymist]

82. How does that song go?

Oh yeah...

Come and meet the Elder Gods
Giant cyclops, cephalopods
I wonder what Cthulhu would say
As he sucks your soul away.

[AndyA]

17. In retrospect, we're all going to wonder why more wasn't done to protect the Pacific

I don't believe we know the full extent of the damage, nor do we know how much has really been released into the ocean.

Someday, we'll learn that the response was completely inadequate, and that proper safety procedures were ignored or non-existent.

Of course, the damage will be done by then. This is not a good thing.

[seveneyes]

18. Where are the pictures of all the destruction?

It won't budge without images of the massacre.

[DeSwiss]

23. That's us dying, we just don't realize it yet. - K&R n/t

[Bennyboy]

27. it is all of it.....

The toxic chemicals dumped into the ocean by the military.

the oil spills around the globe that amount to more oil spilled in the BP disaster...every year, without ANY cllean-up or oversight.

The Corexit and the oil in the gulf.

it is global climate change.

it is the over fishing of certain species.

it is incidental catch..

it is FUKU and will be FUKU for a thousand years.

It is all of it.

[Uncle Joe]

29. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, agent.

[neffernin]

30. Maybe the truth doesn't drive as many page hits

From OP's referenced story:
"Could it be Fukushima?
I am just asking the question."

This sounds so close to Glenn Beck it sickens me. I know it is an activist story but to cherry pick from its sources in such a misleading way is what turns me off to such things. For an argument which should be able to be made without using such tactics, why does the author resort to doing such things? A few of the quotes are out of context by a large margin.

Now, for the truth:

If you want some factual scientific evidence, look at the charts in the 7th and 9th slide on this chart:
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/v2/article/images.do?id=131749

Now maybe Fukishima's effects are minimized by a large margin in the aforementioned charts, but regardless the numbers when it comes to radiation draw a fairly telling conclusion that the amount of radiation seen is not unheard of and has been seen before. Radiation is a normal thing and is omnipresent to some extent on our planet.

So if the radiation was the true cause, what's happening now should not necessarily be unprecedented as we have hit similar amounts of radiation in the water previously. What is different than before then? The amount of trash in the ocean. Over fishing is happening planet wide, which would adversely effect all marine life that depends on that food chain. The EPA has been fighting an uphill battle for nearly all of its existence and I don't know if it has been winning lately as companies still find it cheaper to pollute toxins into the ocean and pay fines than to implement methods to reduce pollution. It is very probable that the radiation plays a part as well.

But what do I know? No more than the guy quoted in the OP.

[neffernin]

35. Follow up

I personally believe that one in the press should try to destroy their own story before trying to post it; especially when it comes to trying to prove a point or take a position. If quotes are out of context and misleading it weakens the argument.

That being said, if enough people make poor arguments it can also weaken the point of those do a better job. I personally believe that global warming is irrefutable, very few have any realistic charts showing that the world is getting colder. Humanities part is refutable though; if it wasn't then there wouldn't be as much pushback as there is.

That being said, there is absolutely no way to refute that we are destroying this planet and it is having adverse effects on EVERYTHING. Pollution and overuse of nearly all water sources, overfarming, deforestation, overpopulation. Of course people can refute these points as well but it is a lot harder to do so when the effects are something anyone can point out visibly pretty much no matter where they are standing. I can see the trash floating in the man-made lake outside my window. And the smog floating over the city.

[NickB79]

33. This has been going on for YEARS, and it's not Fukushima

It's climate change destroying coral reefs, shifting ocean currents, and acidifying the oceans.

It's fishing motherships so large their lights can be seen from fucking SPACE, bottom-trawling and strip-mining the oceans of all life and throwing the bycatch back dead and/or dying.

It's the industrial fish farms that spring up when we've exhausted the native fish schools, that we pump full of antibiotics and manufactured feeds that kill the few remaining fish around them.

It's the massive amounts of chemical pollution we've been dumping in the oceans for the past CENTURY (what Fukushima has added to the toxic soup would barely register at this point except for a couple of short-lived isotopes like cesium).

It's things like the Pacific Plastic Gyre, a Texas-sized region FILLED with floating bits of shredded plastic.

But only NOW do people start to notice this shit?

If ONLY we could point to one centralized problem and say "If we fix this, we'll save the oceans!" That would make the problem easier to fix, more realistic.

But the reality is far, far scarier than blaming Fukushima. The reality is that we all share responsibility for the damage. From the seafood we eat, to the cars we drive, to the plastic garbage we consume and toss in the garbage, we are ALL responsible for this destruction. And in order to stop the destruction, it would mean that we (gasp) curtail the things we enjoy doing or find convenient!

If you're just realizing now how fucked we are, you haven't been paying attention for a loooooong time.

[SidDithers]

40. Thank you...

blaming it all on Fukushima minimizes the effects from polution and climate change, which are the REAL global problems.

Sid

[GreenPartyVoter]

88. +1,000,000

[raouldukelives]

101. Indeed. All shared in and expanded by Wall St investors and workers.

They wallow in the profits of death like pigs in slop. Without one moment of care or consideration to the natural world or the future off their offspring. With every investment dollar helping to grease the palms of politicians to ensure no action can be taken against them and that new inroads to exploitation are made available.
How they sleep at night seeing the madness unraveling before them I'll never know. Probably like smug teenagers. So assured of that they are in the right by the media bubble they live in, they never see the forest blazing away in their name.

[pscot]

129. Find a scapegoat, tear it to pieces

and feel better.

[ronnie624]

133. Excellent post. n/t

[RobertEarl]

136. You are a fervent nucler power supporter, right?

Yes, you are Nick.

Here is what the US DoE chief says:

"Just as the tragic event had global consequences, the success of the cleanup also has global significance. "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023909069#post27

He is saying that the radiation has spread globally. I know that nuke supporters don't like to admit it, but right there is a quote from someone who knows.

[NickB79]

140. No, actually I'm not

I pretty much gave up on nuclear power years ago, when I realized that the problem wasn't a lack of enough energy for humanity, but the fact that humanity can't handle the responsibility that comes with having massive energy reserves at their fingertips. Give humanity enough energy, and we'll just strip-mine this planet for all it's worth.

And of course the radiation has spread globally; that's what shit like this does. Just like the radiation from the HUNDREDS of nuclear bombs we test-fired spread globally in the 1950s and 60's. Yet here we still are.

But nice try, Gary

BTW, has the Pacific ocean boiled off yet?

[AgingAmerican]

34. The collapse of the oceans

is the beginning of the end.

[One_Life_To_Give]

36. Bottom Trawling

Lust for Blue-fin Tuna



Pacific Surface Radiation levels are still below those years following Bikini Island tests.

[Logical]

44. Wow, science FAIL and fucking 60 recs. Embarrassing! nt

[cbayer]

53. +1

[agent46]

63. Maybe the article is a science fail

Yes. And maybe there really is a problem too.

[BlueEye]

79. Agreed!!

Anybody who took college General Chemistry and studied diffusion (and understands the volume of water in the Pacific) *should* understand that the claim that radioactivity could be present 5000 miles away in any discernible quantity is ridiculous.

[opiate69]

84. Yup.. And, interestingly enough, here in Washington...

The State is saying the razor clam populations on the coast this season are off the charts...

[SidDithers]

47. More awesomeness from csglobe...

The Cancer Industry Does Not Want You To Know About Chemotherapy and Radiation

Wireless, Chemtrails And You

How medicine is killing us all

What’s really in vaccines? Proof of MSG, formaldehyde, aluminum and mercury

Some deadly side effects of consuming fluoridated tap water

Mind Control and the New World Order

Why Medicine Won’t Allow Cancer to Be Cured




Dumbass fucking woo site.



Sid

[felix_numinous]

48. Critical mass

--what I do know about chemistry is that two ingredients combined make a third, and so on. With the chemical soup made in the Pacific, it would be easy to imagine that at a certain point a catalyzing agent could change everything.

This is what I believe is happening on land as well, living beings cannot keep up with the level and contents of these toxins and changes in acidity.

[cbayer]

52. Where is the data that supports the statement that "there is so much

death and disease among sea life living near the west coast of North America right now".

The article links to some really soft and mostly anecdotal information, but not actual science that would support this premise.

[RobertEarl]

72. There are lots of 'strange' deaths

There is the report from a sailor who claims on the last trip from Japan to the US, it appeared the ocean life has dwindled remarkably.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023886917

Report from 2011 about the radiation which could cause harm
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/radioactivity_in_the_ocean_diluted_but_far_from_harmless/2391/

Details about the plume hitting the west coast
http://scienceblog.com/65898/fukushima-radioactive-plume-to-reach-us-in-three-years/

Report about Chernobyl and how the science was buried
http://scienceblog.com/65744/viewing-fukushima-in-the-cold-light-of-chernobyl/

Sardines have disappeared
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023856355

Sea lion deaths on California coasts: no link

Salmon runs are way down: no link

Orcas disappearing: no link

[cbayer]

113. None of which supports his premise.

Where is the data?

BTW, I live on the Pacific. In the actual water. I don't see any evidence of change at all. Does that counter the single sailor who happened to notice that he saw less sea life on a single trip?

News flash. Fish move around and birds and other animals follow them. It is not at all unusual to see this happen.

[RobertEarl]

120. Where is your data?

You say you don't see any evidence of change at all.

That means you must have data showing that everything is the same as it was when you first started collecting the data.

But of course.... you have no data. So demanding data from DU, while dismissing reports of changes that even the National Wildlife Service has noted re: Sea Lion deaths, means you just want to be in denial?

There is a fair amount of evidence of changes.

We just don't know for sure what is the reason. It would not be wise, nor scientific, to deny radiation as a cause.

Have a nice day!

[cbayer]

122. Exactly, I don't have any data and neither does the author of this article.

What I was saying is that I have an anecdotal report, just like the single sailor who reported seeing less evidence of sea life.

I am not drawing any conclusions from my observations.

I'm not in denial. I believe that we are experiencing changes in sea life, but the causes of those are complex and multifactorial. I think climate change is most likely the major factor.

At any rate, the alarming statements he makes as his premise are not supported by any data. The article is bunk.

[Bennyboy]

54. This article is pretty much the now debunked "28 reasons" story

rehashed but with the same "facts" yet without links.

BTW< that story has been debunked here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023946286

[Demo_Chris]

55. I blame Cthuhlu. The stars are ripe for it. Cultists, you're next! nt

[agent46]

61. On It

[Autumn]

62. I tend to think it's climate change.

[Snake Plissken]

64. The prophet Donald "Buck Dharma" Roeser predicted this back in 1977

[Codeine]

66. Bullshit site is bullshit. nt

[heaven05]

69. Oh, the 'leaders' in science and politics know what's happening.

WE WILL BE THE LAST TO KNOW!!!!!

[lonestarnot]

74. One side the black spewing cocktail, the other side the radioactive cocktail. Energy should be

something we can figure out how to provide without nuking the planet and filling our water resource with oil. We are doomed.

[SidDithers]

80. More greatness from the dumbass CT site used in the OP...

CIA Cover-up Alleged in JFK’s Secret UFO Inquiry

Music conspiracy to detune us from natural 432 Hz harmonics?

ELF Waves – Mass Mind Control

Eight reasons why water fluoridation has failed modern civilization

Science and the taboo of psi

Extraordinary cases of Extraterrestrial contact




Sid

[agent46]

110. Sid

Please, ease up on the ridicule. We all have our boxes. One of these days something could happen and the box you're in might start to crack. It happens.

~46

[SidDithers]

114. You chose to post unsupported bullshit from a Conspiracy Theory site...

The dangers associated with Fukushima are real enough. There's no need to attribute every incident of damage or destruction to radiation released from Fukushima.

The "article" in the OP is junk science, spectacularly misinformed at best, deliberately incorrect at worst.

Sources are important. The dumbass CT site provided in the OP deserves all the ridicule it gets.

"Microwave Sickness and Chemtrail Related Illness"

The Great “Smart Meters” Hoax

"We know, indirectly, that Big Pharma doesn’t care if vaccines cause harm to us or our children. Parents of autistic children can see that every day of their lives. Those who’ve lost their precious children to vaccines live with the emptiness every day."

Not everything you read on the internet is true. Seriously.

Sid

[agent46]

121. Fair enough

I'll do better next time. On the other hand, people speculate so much these days because of the pervasive culture of lies, propaganda and cover ups in which authority and so-called facts must be called into question.

For example, I'm not prepared to believe any statistics about the volume of contaminated water being pumped into the open ocean around fukushima, or for that matter, any other toxins being dumped out there by unregulated corporate entities and the world's military forces without oversight.

Those are "facts" we don't and probably never will have access to.

Is it Fukushima that's causing die offs in the Pacific? Given your points on the science but not the reliability of your statistics, I'd say probably not Fukushima alone. Once that's established, the answer to the alarming state of the oceans becomes a matter of educated guesses at best and conjecture at worst.

Rather than ridicule, let's hear some educated guesses or even some thoughtful conjecture. Unless you want to suggest there really isn't a crisis.

Almost everyone is sick of the lies at this point and a lot of us are sick of the ridicule offered by those without answers of their own.

And yes. I'll do better next time.

[RobertEarl]

125. The possibility exists

Some people want to remain in complete denial. Can't say I blame them. Ignorance can be very blissful.

What your thread does is to begin to educate and inform people about the possibility. As we have seen, the deniers present no science to back up their assertion that: "nothing is happening".

Something is happening. Fukushima happened and the science says the runoff from Fukushima is crossing the ocean. We already got dosed with airborne particles. Now the water is coming.

It is good to keep an open mind and open eyes and our heads out of the sand.

[Silent3]

139. There are some things you should be able to figure out on your own...

...without relying that much on who is or is not a trustworthy authority.

Guess the rough size of the Fukushima reactors. Go wild and assume the whole power plant is a solid block of radioactive poison, not just a big container with a relatively small (by volume) amount of radioactive material inside.

Then look up the total volume of all the water in all the oceans.

Divide.

Ask yourself if you think radioactive materials, which already exist and have existed in our natural environment well before modern technology, are such frightening dangerous things to cause all that much damage is such very, very minute concentrations.

[gopiscrap]

83. yikes

[zappaman]

85. Great site you linked to!

Any other complete full of shit sites you can link us to?

[agent46]

132. Here you go

Guy McPherson - Professor Emeritus of Natural Resources and Ecology & Evolutionary Biology at University of Arizona.

Here's his University Web Page: http://ag.arizona.edu/~grm/

Here's his blog - Nature Bats Last: http://guymcpherson.com/

Warning: There's lots of science in there so you'll have to actually read it. Sorry. I don't have anything with shit or short sound bytes for you.

[gtar100]

86. This is very sad.

[BillyRibs]

87. TEPCO

has Fukushimed the Pacific ocean. Good Luck to get anyone here to believe us.

[Bonobo]

89. Indeed, but it ISN'T Fukushima.

Nutty shit does nothing good for anyone. It just makes you look nutty.

[TreasonousBastard]

90. Massive dieoffs are not unusual, but scary when they do happen...

And I don't for a second excuse us for some of the problems, but others are natural, like lemmings off the cliff...

Molasses
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-mass-fish-hawaii-linked-molasses.html

Virus
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTczOTIxMjY%3D

Possible red tide
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/03/redondo-beach-authorities-report-large-fish-kill-at-king-harbor.html

And, with many marine species (land species, too) a large population allows a disease or other pathogen to quickly spread
http://aquatic.animalhealth.org/article/starfish-deaths-alarm-vancouver-aquarium-huffington-post-canada

It should be noted that similar starfish deaths have been reported on the East Coast, from Maine to Florida, leading one to think something besides Fukushima is to blame.

[ReRe]

93. And guess what happens when all the sea life has vanished?

...We're next. Life on earth will cease if sea life can't survive.

[SidDithers]

94. Un-fucking-believable. 100+ recs for pseudo-scientific CT bullshit...

from a site that thinks ET's are living on Earth, and that we're being poisoned by Chemtrails.

DU has officially become infowars.



Sid

[Bonobo]

97. It's like the Middle Ages and people discussing bodily humors. nt

[blkmusclmachine]

95. MUST. LOOK. FORWARD.

[Android3.14]

98. Sorry, no author, nothing but links, and all uneducated speculation

This, so far, is ignorant conspiracy crap. The link goes to an article with no author that is nothing more than a bunch of CT linking of different articles with the repeated question "Is it Fukushima?" scattered between every wide-eyed blather.
It is silly to think that if a radiation leak were causing all these problems, that the entire world of environmental scientists would refrain from stating the situation in specific terms and design experiments to prove or disprove the hypothesis.
agent 46, do you have any expertise in this matter?
I abhor these kinds of article masquerading as news.

[AtheistCrusader]

108. A question that is worth asking, but begs a few other questions.

"Why is there so much death and disease among sea life living near the west coast of North America right now?"
"Right now, massive numbers of fish and sea creatures are dying in the Pacific Ocean."

Assumes more death and disease than normal. Unproven. Does not specify numbers, trends, starting points, etc.


"In addition, independent tests have shown that significant levels of cesium-137 are in a very high percentage of the fish that are being caught in the Pacific and sold in North America."

Where else is it in the food chain? Are any of the sick/dying animals exhibiting evidence of radiation damage or contamination?


Is the Sea Stars issue related to rising acidification of the oceans as it takes in more CO2, or is there actual radiation in/around the Sea Stars that has been measured?


We know acidification is a problem, and will increasingly be one. I would also look to local industries, poisoning water inlets to the ocean, where a large number of the recent stories came from with any number of pollutants. (Sea lions, Pink Salmon, Sea Stars)

[tkmorris]

112. This thread is just plain embarassing

The next time someone tries to claim that our education system works in any way I am just going to link to this thread. It is nothing but straight up fearmongering for the scientifically ignorant. And 125 recs. One hundred and twenty five. Oh. my. fucking. GAWD.

The worst thing about all of this is that our oceans ARE in trouble. Not just the Pacific, all of them. There are a number of reasons for that but Fukushima is not one of them. Arguing that it is is worse than just a black eye to every science classroom, or at least to those who took naps there instead of paying attention, it actually distracts people from focusing on the real problems. Which is a boon to those who are making a fortune by doing the very things that are in fact destroying our oceans, directly or indirectly.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

115. "Fukushima is not one of them" ??? Ok, ...

name the things that are putting our oceans in peril and compare and contrast to Fukushima.

Then, explain how Fukushima is "not one of them", "them" being the collective things that trouble our oceans.

[tkmorris]

119. Fukushima is tragic to be sure

But the damage it is doing to sea life is localized to the surrounding area. It is NOT melting starfish off of our Northwestern coastline, or any of the other things being attributed to it. If you want to know why or why not go figure it out for yourself. I don't have the time nor the inclination to post an essay which would almost certainly be ignored by people who will believe what they want to believe, evidence for or against be damned.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

123. With all due respect...

...fail.

You failed to address the premise of my post. My point was that Fukushima is most definitely part of the conglomerate sources of "trouble" that our oceans face. I asked you to name even just one something that is affecting our oceans besides Fukushima and you failed to do so.

I didn't ask because I necessarily dispute your assertion. Indeed, I'm not quite ready to ride the Fukushima Doom Train as some people are. I merely asked you to back your statement that "Fukushima is not one of them" up a bit more effectively.

[Silent3]

137. Fukushima is "part of the conglomerate" only in the same way a few raindrops are part of a flood.

Imagine your computer screen is all the world's oceans.

Then look at this dot -> .

Imagine zooming that dot up to the size of your whole screen, and seeing another dot -> .

And do that again. And again.

Now maybe you're getting a feel for the size of the oceans verses the degree of contamination released at Fukushima. Radioactive contaminants can certainly be scary, they can and do cause big messes in some places, but they aren't such amazingly super dangerous mega toxins that they can horribly poison whole oceans in such vanishingly small concentrations.

[SidDithers]

116. The site used in the OP is a Boston Bomber truther site...

Official story unraveling for Boston marathon bombing

snip

Why did the Boston bomb squad know all this in advance?

Given these facts, ask yourself: Who is the most likely culprit in the bombing?

The Boston bomb squad clearly had advanced notice of the presence of the bombs at the marathon, and they also had advanced notice of the location of the bomb at the Kennedy Presidential Library.

There are two reasonable explanations for this:
1) Someone called in a warning and threatened to bomb the event, which is why the bomb squad was on scene.
2) The bomb squad carried out the bombing as a false flag operation to achieve a political goal (unleashing TSA on the streets, blaming right wingers, increasing the bomb squad budget, etc.).

Infowars wannabe sites are OK in GD, I guess.

Sid

[hueymahl]

117. You are getting a lot of heat for being alarmist

because you are being alarmist.

There MAY be a localized radiation issue harming wildlife extending a few miles from the site of the release.

This does not mean there are not SERIOUS problems with pollution, overfishing, ocean warming and a host of other issues. But radiation from Japan is not one of them, and the most basic of science proves that.

Overstating the risk and potential harm may draw attention to a problem, but it does long term harm to the resolution of that problem because it decreases the credibility of the speakers on that issue. And it permits those denying real science a talking point to advance their agenda (witness what skeptics have done with various global warming alarmist rhetoric - it has made it that much harder for the real science to be accepted by a now jaded public).

But I appreciate your passion on the topic. Ocean health is an important topic that should be talked about more.

[DhhD]

118. Ca-Calcium is replaced by Na-Sodium in ocean water. Could be a replacement in the Phosphate

Cycle; Phosphorous being recycled by Plankton along with other regenerative cells like the Animalia Echinoderms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction_in_starfish

Regeneration is not occurring due to tonic water.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2140449/

http://www.lookchem.com/cas-134/13472-35-0.html

Melamine Moulding compounds
http://www.thomasnet.com/products/melamine-resins-67610956-1.html

Urea Moulding Compounds
http://www.lyjosen.com/

[Oilwellian]

124. This was an eye-opening article

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1848433/the-ocean-is-broken/?cs=12

[Texano78704]

127. Correlation is not proof of causation

While I'm not saying there is or isn't a problem with Fukushima, most of what in this article uses "correlation as proof of causation." In my opinion, it's alarmist.

[Kali]

130. um, it is Halloween, not April Fools Day

using no common sense and a conspiracy site as a source plus some of the scientific ignorance displayed in this thread is fucking depressing.

[pinto]

131. Domoic acid poisoning of marine life and algae blooms -

I have a friend who is involved with marine mammal rescue and rehabilitation programs. She suggested these sources. ~ pinto

Marine Mammal Center science publications -

http://www.marinemammalcenter.org/science/publications/#.UnKnnEbn_IV

and an overview of domoic poisoning among sea life -

http://www.oceansoffun.org/index.php/146



Domoic acid is a neurotoxin produced by a few specific types of harmful algae blooms. The diatom, Psuedonitzschia australis, is a phytoplankton that causes detrimental effects in the marine environment. The alga is not detrimental to its primary consumers but becomes harmful when it is consumed by another organism. Many shellfish and other small fish consume this alga when it is blooming and then it accumulates in their bodies. The problem occurs when another member of the food chain consumes this contaminated prey source. The toxin is then biomagnified through the food chain resulting in health concerns for the animals or humans who have consumed the toxin.

Biomagnification is the increase in concentration of a pollutant from one link in a food chain to another. Many of the most dangerous toxins settle to the seafloor and then are taken in by organisms that live or feed on bottom sediments. Because these compounds aren't digested, they accumulate within the animals that ingest them, and become more and more concentrated as they pass along the food chain. Top predators will have the highest concentrations of the toxin because they have eaten the most prey that has been contaminated.