+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 34 of 34

Thread: Fukushima disaster: Tokyo hides truth...

  1. Link to Post #21
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    27th March 2010
    Age
    65
    Posts
    205
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 364 times in 129 posts

    Default Re: Fukushima disaster: Tokyo hides truth...

    It is a pretty hard sell to try and down play the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the worst nuclear incident in history, ENE is read every day even by Arnie Gunderson who expands and goes into more detail on the information there.
    On caravan to Midnight episode 257 (March 27 2015) there is a great interview with Arnie Gunderson on the Fukishima situation.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Rozzy For This Post:

    Camilo (2nd April 2015)

  3. Link to Post #22
    United States Avalon Member thepainterdoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    27th November 2013
    Age
    70
    Posts
    3,216
    Thanks
    11,007
    Thanked 33,162 times in 3,159 posts

    Default Re: Fukushima disaster: Tokyo hides truth...

    this is ,or at least should be the greatest most urgent and dire event / topic for discussion for all on planet earth.
    the only reasons I can see that it is not are ; 1 radiation is truly not as harmful as we were told years ago, or 2, that this is so bad and such a disaster etc, that there is nothing that can be done and so telling the truth about it would cause only harm for the business money paradigm etc. the relatively smaller 3 mile island incident was publicized every night on the 6 pm news as the gravest of disasters with instructions to stay in doors, wash veggies etc. today fukushima is barely mentioned.

    we were also told that radiation from the van allen belt is so deadly it cant be navigated, yet we went to the moon and all turned out just fine. so which is it, deadly or not?

    i have a good quality radiation detector and I brought it on a flight from east coast of USA to Mexico across the gulf. the meter read 40 background radiation before i took off and close to 900 when at 3500 feet. good god that seems high. how do pilots and flight attendants live with that exposure every day? unless of course, its harmless??

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to thepainterdoug For This Post:

    Camilo (2nd April 2015), Elainie (2nd April 2015)

  5. Link to Post #23
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    19th February 2015
    Age
    67
    Posts
    2,202
    Thanks
    7,544
    Thanked 9,600 times in 1,987 posts

    Default Re: Fukushima disaster: Tokyo hides truth...

    Quote Posted by thepainterdoug (here)
    ...unless of course, its harmless??
    If it wasn't harmless, would anyone be living in Hiroshima or Nagasaki today? The Japanese have real, live experience with living in supposedly nuclear-polluted areas**. Maybe that's why their reaction to Fukushima is so much less hysterical than Americans'.

    **Not to mention Utah and Nevada, which were used to test bombs for years. For years and years, the PTB made and tested "dirty" bombs (bombs with supposedly very deadly fission products) in Utah and Nevada. The dirtier the better, in their eyes...with many, many of those tests above-ground. And yet, Utah and Nevada are not nuclear waste-lands.

    Long story short, the oil barons are terrified of nuclear power, and will do everything in their power (no pun intended) to discredit it.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Selkie For This Post:

    seko (3rd April 2015)

  7. Link to Post #24
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    27th March 2010
    Age
    65
    Posts
    205
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 364 times in 129 posts

    Default Re: Fukushima disaster: Tokyo hides truth...

    Yes the Japenese people have suffered and are suffering the effects of nuclear radiation, immediately after the nuclear tests in The States lung cancer and children's cancer went way up. John Wayne and others from a contaminated movie site did not fare to well. Hughes who had bankrolled the movie had checked with the authorities as to whether it was safe or not was told it was AOK. There is no safe way of doing nuclear anything, to this day there is no safe way of dealing with spent fuel, they just keep storing it up. That is like a time bomb that gets bigger by the day. There are sites in both India and China that are highly radioactive to this day from a prior nuclear age. The Sinai peninsula is another place that shows the aftermath of a nuclear event from days gone by.
    Town sites outside the nuclear test sites in America saw their natural radiation levels go from around twenty counts per minute to one hundred thousand and what did they blame for the cancer rate increase, blame smoking.
    Last edited by Rozzy; 3rd April 2015 at 03:31.

  8. Link to Post #25
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    27th March 2010
    Age
    65
    Posts
    205
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 364 times in 129 posts

    Default Re: Fukushima disaster: Tokyo hides truth...

    Quote Posted by thepainterdoug (here)
    this is ,or at least should be the greatest most urgent and dire event / topic for discussion for all on planet earth.
    the only reasons I can see that it is not are ; 1 radiation is truly not as harmful as we were told years ago, or 2, that this is so bad and such a disaster etc, that there is nothing that can be done and so telling the truth about it would cause only harm for the business money paradigm etc. the relatively smaller 3 mile island incident was publicized every night on the 6 pm news as the gravest of disasters with instructions to stay in doors, wash veggies etc. today fukushima is barely mentioned.

    we were also told that radiation from the van allen belt is so deadly it cant be navigated, yet we went to the moon and all turned out just fine. so which is it, deadly or not?

    i have a good quality radiation detector and I brought it on a flight from east coast of USA to Mexico across the gulf. the meter read 40 background radiation before i took off and close to 900 when at 3500 feet. good god that seems high. how do pilots and flight attendants live with that exposure every day? unless of course, its harmless??

    I have been flying a lot lately and really do not like to do to the increased radiation, hopefully i can stay on the ground for a while now.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Rozzy For This Post:

    thepainterdoug (3rd April 2015)

  10. Link to Post #26
    Australia Avalon Member panopticon's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    2,591
    Thanks
    8,262
    Thanked 8,008 times in 2,305 posts

    Default Re: Fukushima disaster: Tokyo hides truth...

    Quote Posted by thepainterdoug (here)
    i have a good quality radiation detector and I brought it on a flight from east coast of USA to Mexico across the gulf. the meter read 40 background radiation before i took off and close to 900 when at 3500 feet. good god that seems high. how do pilots and flight attendants live with that exposure every day? unless of course, its harmless??
    Seems like standard measurements (I'm assuming the measurements are CPM and 3,500 feet should read 35,000 ft).

    Here's an article I found about someone taking measurements in flight:
    https://allegedlyapparent.wordpress....nta-amsterdam/

    Also here's a good site that explains the danger to flight/cabin crew on commercial flights (hint: it's very low):
    http://www.hps.org/publicinformation...alflights.html

    The danger associated with radiation is dependent on type of radiation (alpha/beta/gamma), level of radiation & length of exposure to it.

    It isn't simply "radiation is bad" or "radiation is good".

    It depends on dose as to whether it is harmful and at very low levels it's possible that some may even be beneficial (low dose radiation hormesis).

    -- Pan
    "What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence.
    The only consequence is what we do."

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to panopticon For This Post:

    TargeT (10th April 2015), thepainterdoug (3rd April 2015)

  12. Link to Post #27
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    19th February 2015
    Age
    67
    Posts
    2,202
    Thanks
    7,544
    Thanked 9,600 times in 1,987 posts

    Default Re: Fukushima disaster: Tokyo hides truth...

    Quote Posted by Rozzy (here)
    ...There are sites in both India and China that are highly radioactive to this day from a prior nuclear age. The Sinai peninsula is another place that shows the aftermath of a nuclear event from days gone by.
    I didn't say that certain sites are not radioactive. I said that the radioactivity does not appear to be harmful, since people are living and thriving in places that were bombed and that SHOULD be uninhabitable, if the conventional "wisdom" about nuclear radiation is correct.

    Quote Posted by Rozzy (here)
    ...Town sites outside the nuclear test sites in America saw their natural radiation levels go from around twenty counts per minute to one hundred thousand and what did they blame for the cancer rate increase, blame smoking.
    I take you to mean their background radiation levels, which would not increase because of a bomb.

    But to address what I think you are trying to say, the cancers could have been caused by nano-sized silica and other particulates from the fallout. All bombs produce nanoparticles, and I would bet the farm that it is these that are responsible for the increased cancer rates in the fallout zones after the tests, and not radiation at all, because nanoparticles are known to be very dangerous to health.

    Nanoparticles can enter cells and slice the DNA to ribbons, which could cause cancer. Not only that, but bomb-produced nanoparticles would be coated with foreign genes from the DNA of plants and animals that were blown to bits by the bombs. When breathed in, etc., this would introduce foreign genes into a person's cells, which could cause all kinds of havoc at the molecular and cellular level, and cause cancer.**

    As an aside, it is my belief that the horrible birth defects seen in Iraq have very little to do with DU and everything to do with nanoparticles of silica coated with a witch's brew of genes of every description getting into the reproductive systems of the women and men there.

    **Smoking, too, introduces nanoparticles into the lungs.
    Last edited by Selkie; 3rd April 2015 at 11:30.

  13. Link to Post #28
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    27th March 2010
    Age
    65
    Posts
    205
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 364 times in 129 posts

    Default Re: Fukushima disaster: Tokyo hides truth...

    Increased radiation levels equal health risk, there are a lot of things that are not good for a persons health but nuclear is a technology that goes beyond exceptable risk. Many nuke plants are forty years old and at the end of their life, the owners are looking for twenty year extensions. these old plants are not designed well in the first place never mind extending their use. The processing plants for spent uranium that were promised never materialized and will not because there is no process to do it to this day. The nuclear accidents we have already realized and witnessed should be enough already. The military nuclear programs are proliferating and will with out any doubt be our number one threat to survival. Because you can do something does not mean you should.

  14. Link to Post #29
    Australia Avalon Member panopticon's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    2,591
    Thanks
    8,262
    Thanked 8,008 times in 2,305 posts

    Default Re: Fukushima disaster: Tokyo hides truth...

    Just to clarify what I said above.

    When I said:
    Quote It depends on dose as to whether it is harmful and at very low levels it's possible that some may even be beneficial
    What I was talking about was low level above background.

    There have been a number of really interesting studies done on what effect a lack of low level radiation has and it can be summed up:
    Quote Our findings corroborate the hypothesis that environmental radiation contributes to the development of defence mechanisms in today living organisms/systems.

    E Fratini, C Carbone, D Capece, G Esposito, G Simone, MA Tabocchini, M Tomasi, M Belli, and L Satta. 2015. 'Low-radiation environment affects the development of protection mechanisms in V79 cells', Radiation and environmental biophysics, January: 1-12
    These studies indicate, as we would all understand, that life on Earth has developed being exposed to background levels. Without that background level it appears vital systems/protection mechanisms don't function properly.

    Just thought I'd clear that up as it indicates that the LNT model may be inadequate for its purpose:
    Quote The risk estimation for radiation-induced cancer at low doses is based on the linear no-threshold (LNT) model... According to this model, cancer risk is directly proportional to the radiation dose, no matter how small. Nevertheless, phenomena like adaptive response, genomic instability, and bystander effects, have been observed at low doses that challenged this assumption. All these phenomena imply a deviation from the linear no-threshold (LNT) model of cancer risk. However, it is still an open question if the final effect at organism level of doses below 100mGy is detrimental or beneficial.

    D Capece, E Fratini. 2012. 'The use of pKZ1 mouse chromosomal inversion assay to study biological effects of environmental background radiation', The European Physical Journal Plus, 127(4): 1-5.
    Of course the precautionary principle applies in bucket loads in this instance and while there is evidence that a lack of any radiation (ie background) is bad for development there is very little evidence indicating that low levels above background is beneficial other than anecdotal and occasional papers. The papers and studies being done into this, that I've read anyway, do not all show a positive trend nor do they indicate what radiation type, level or duration might be beneficial in what circumstances.

    Accordingly, the precautionary principle means that the LNT model is here for at least a while yet.

    -- Pan
    "What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence.
    The only consequence is what we do."

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to panopticon For This Post:

    Selkie (3rd April 2015), TargeT (10th April 2015)

  16. Link to Post #30
    Australia Avalon Member panopticon's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    2,591
    Thanks
    8,262
    Thanked 8,008 times in 2,305 posts

    Default Re: Fukushima disaster: Tokyo hides truth...

    Quote Posted by Rozzy (here)
    Increased radiation levels equal health risk, there are a lot of things that are not good for a persons health but nuclear is a technology that goes beyond exceptable risk. Many nuke plants are forty years old and at the end of their life, the owners are looking for twenty year extensions. these old plants are not designed well in the first place never mind extending their use. The processing plants for spent uranium that were promised never materialized and will not because there is no process to do it to this day. The nuclear accidents we have already realized and witnessed should be enough already. The military nuclear programs are proliferating and will with out any doubt be our number one threat to survival. Because you can do something does not mean you should.
    G'day Rozzy,

    I agree with your sentiment.

    I'm not in favour of nuclear power plants. I see little need for them given recent advances in renewables.

    Yes, most of the older plants appear to be maintenance nightmares. There's a thread here where I showed how TEPCO was using an orange traffic cone in what appeared to be a waste water diversion. From memory I think it was held on by gaffe tap...

    The other things that have been done on site @Fukushima I've written about extensively here and truly am amazed that the rod removal from coolent pool #4 reactor didn't end in a tragedy. It is more good luck I think than anything else. Don't get me started on the waste water tanks there. Absolutely shocking!

    The reason I keep rabbiting on about radiation levels and observations is that there is a lot of disinformation being spread by vested interests.

    Fukushima was a terrible accident that will have long lasting ramifications for the people of Japan. Yes, the people of Japan who live/lived near the accident site or the fishers who work/worked the waters off the coast have been/will be effected by this for years to come. As will the other parts of the natural environment (near the accident site) to varying levels.

    What has happened though is groups who make (or are trying to make) money from advertising or selling certain items have tried to make this seem a lot bigger than it is.

    The levels of Cs-127 that are being recorded in the waters off the US West coast are not much changed (if they are at all) and most sites are still not getting any usable Cs-124 readings.

    When I point out the errors in posts made by some members here (often quoted from elsewhere) it seems people want to believe that Fukushima is worse than it is.

    I don't understand that. It's well beyond my comprehension.

    2 reactor cores melted at Fukushima. That's already pretty bloody bad. But for people to be saying that it's doing all sorts of things just to spread fear and/or make money from scared people...

    Nah, I just don't get that. I don't think I ever will, at least I hope I won't...

    From your posts you seem genuinely concerned (not a "chicken little") which is why I've been responding to this thread.

    Yes, there are genuine reasons we should all be anti-nuclear weapons. I personally feel the same about nuclear power though others disagree and that's fine.

    I hope this was useful.

    -- Pan
    "What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence.
    The only consequence is what we do."

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to panopticon For This Post:

    Selkie (3rd April 2015)

  18. Link to Post #31
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    27th March 2010
    Age
    65
    Posts
    205
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 364 times in 129 posts

    Default Re: Fukushima disaster: Tokyo hides truth...

    I wish I had more time to be current on a host of subjects of interest but duty calls on staying afloat $$$$, (like most folks right now). There seems to be a push on for even more nuclear development though there seems to be precious little advancement in some of the most pressing issues with its use. Since nuclear is now old tech and seeing the other technological advances developing at such accelerated rates I am sure we could leave nuclear to the record books of the past where it belongs. The issue of introducing new technology is always based on how to make the most $$ and make it flow to the usual suspects. Military use and the secreting of the same trumps the good of the planet, mankind and life itself. Nuclear is like trying to drive a Model T Ford on one of todays freeways.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Rozzy For This Post:

    panopticon (6th April 2015)

  20. Link to Post #32
    Australia Avalon Member panopticon's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    2,591
    Thanks
    8,262
    Thanked 8,008 times in 2,305 posts

    Default Re: Fukushima disaster: Tokyo hides truth...

    Quote Posted by Rozzy (here)
    I wish I had more time to be current on a host of subjects of interest but duty calls on staying afloat $$$$, (like most folks right now). There seems to be a push on for even more nuclear development though there seems to be precious little advancement in some of the most pressing issues with its use. Since nuclear is now old tech and seeing the other technological advances developing at such accelerated rates I am sure we could leave nuclear to the record books of the past where it belongs. The issue of introducing new technology is always based on how to make the most $$ and make it flow to the usual suspects. Military use and the secreting of the same trumps the good of the planet, mankind and life itself. Nuclear is like trying to drive a Model T Ford on one of todays freeways.
    G'day Rozzy,

    I know what you mean.

    There are so many things that I research/watch that sometimes I just can't keep track of anything else (for example the recent Germanwings crash was one of those things getting limited attention because of my interest in Ocalan's recent statement to the PKK and how that is playing with Turkey etc).

    Also it's too easy at Avalon to end up in a long circular discussion about something almost trivial, which then takes hours to explain and ends in stonewall and argument based on little to no evidence other than personal opinion...

    I try to avoid those.

    I've been reviewing the data from a number of sources about the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident since it occurred and watched some fairly weird statements (fear mongering in many cases) coming out about it from some vested interests.

    The data I've seen indicates that there was a number of explosions associated with the melt-downs. The main explosion appears to have been the result of a build-up of pressure in damaged pipes between reactor #3 & #4 buildings exhaust stack. This is contrary to what was reported at the time, a hydrogen explosion in #4. The vented gas from this explosion is what produced the various isotopes that were detected in the surrounding area as well as in very low (almost below detectable) levels on the US West Coast.

    Following the eventual containment of the immediate danger a large volume of radioactive water (that had been used to cool the reactors) had been released into the ocean off-shore from the site. The levels of contamination varied with depth (for example some sea floor fish & crustacean near the accident had moderately high levels in some instances while some fish living higher in the ocean had lower levels) and currents moving it around. There were a number of models formulated to predict the "concentration" of the radioactive "plume" and its movement in the Pacific.

    The level of Caesium-134 indicates whether anything detected is from Fukushima (not earlier nuclear bomb testing). So far (last I saw anyway) the tests indicated that radiation from Fukushima had just started reaching the US West Coast but was only just above normal ocean background levels. The testings from WHOI can be seen here.

    Pre-Fukushima Caesium-137 levels (background from nuclear bomb testing, waste nuclear fuel dumping & natural sources):



    The "plume" has not caused a "radioactive dead zone", this was a misrepresentation of research undertaken into something completely different...

    There have been some disturbing radiation levels detected in some fish caught off Fukushima though these levels have decreased to almost background.

    The ongoing problems with storage/processing of radioactive water at Fukushima is something that really does deserve attention as is the problems associated with rainwater run-off (particularly from area H1 and the associated drainage ditch).

    Then there's what I see as the next main problem, since the spent fuel assemblies have finally been removed from reactor #4's pool, which is what the hell is going to be done with the melted cores! This is finally starting to get a bit of attention and really is a huge deal. The only real option I see is to cover it and try to stop ground water getting in and moving through to the ocean...

    All of these are local problems that will impact on people living near the site. All of them are problems that need world wide attention.

    Anyway, I agree with everything you've said about nuclear energy.

    There are lots of cleaner ways to produce electricity that have zero long term risk to the environment.

    As has been said by someone a lot brighter than I am:
    Nuclear power is one hell of a way to boil water.
    -- Pan
    "What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence.
    The only consequence is what we do."

  21. Link to Post #33
    United States Avalon Member ZooLife's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th September 2014
    Age
    38
    Posts
    2,019
    Thanks
    9,061
    Thanked 13,079 times in 1,967 posts

    Default Re: Fukushima disaster: Tokyo hides truth...

    I still have eyes to see what the world would have me see but that doesn't mean I believe. - Sara

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to ZooLife For This Post:

    panopticon (10th April 2015)

  23. Link to Post #34
    Australia Avalon Member panopticon's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Posts
    2,591
    Thanks
    8,262
    Thanked 8,008 times in 2,305 posts

    Default Re: Fukushima disaster: Tokyo hides truth...

    To answer the question: Humans exposed through seafood consumption?

    No. The levels (at the moment as well as predicted) are too low to be harmful.

    The sources of the information referenced by Enenews.

    http://ourradioactiveocean.org/
    http://www.whoi.edu/maps/kbuessler/fukushimaMap.do

    Plus the awesome blog by Dr Jay Cullen:
    http://www.dailykos.com/blog/MarineChemist

    Dr Cullen also assists with the Integrated Fukushima Ocean Radionuclide Monitoring (InFORM) Network:
    http://fukushimainform.ca/

    Cullen states:
    Quote These levels of Cs-137 and Cs-134, are well below internationally established levels that might represent a danger to human or environmental health.
    Source
    Of course Dr Ken Buesseler (from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute [WHOI]) is the primary source for almost all the data being used (he also organises the Citizen sampling/crowd funding for Our Radioactive Oceans).

    Here's the WHOI news release being referenced by Enenews.

    -- Pan

    ###

    Trace Amounts of Fukushima Radioactivity Detected Along Shoreline of British Columbia
    6th April 2015

    Scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) have for the first time detected the presence of small amounts of radioactivity from the 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant accident in a seawater sample from the shoreline of North America. The sample, which was collected on February 19 in Ucluelet, British Columbia, with the assistance of the Ucluelet Aquarium, contained trace amounts of cesium (Cs) -134 and -137, well below internationally established levels of concern to humans and marine life.

    The WHOI scientists, with the help of citizen volunteers, have collected samples at more than 60 sites along the U.S. and Canadian West Coast and Hawaii over the past 15 months for traces of radioactive isotopes from Fukushima. Last November, the team reported their first sample containing detectable radioactivity from Fukushima 100 miles (150 km) off shore of Northern California. However, no radiation had yet been found along any of the beaches or shorelines where the public has been sampling since 2013.

    “Radioactivity can be dangerous, and we should be carefully monitoring the oceans after what is certainly the largest accidental release of radioactive contaminants to the oceans in history,” said Ken Buesseler, a marine chemist at WHOI who has been measuring levels of radioactivity in seawater samples from across the Pacific since 2011. “However, the levels we detected in Ucluelet are extremely low.”

    Scientists at WHOI are analyzing samples for two forms of radioactive cesium that can only come from human sources. Cesium-137, the “legacy” cesium that remains after atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, is found in all the world's oceans because of its relatively long, 30-year half-life. This means it takes 30 years for one-half of the cesium-137 in a sample to decay. The Fukushima reactors added unprecedented amounts of cesium-137 into the ocean, as well as equal amounts of cesium-134. Because cesium-134 has a two-year half-life, any cesium-134 detected in the ocean today can only have been added recently—and the only recent source of cesium-134 has been Fukushima.

    The Ucluelet sample contained 1.4 Becquerels per cubic meter (Bq/m3) (the number of decay events per second per 260 gallons of water) of cesium-134, a telltale sign of having come from Fukushima, and 5.8 Bq/m3 of cesium-137. These levels are comparable to those measured 100 miles off the coast of Northern California last summer. If someone were to swim for 6 hours a day every day of the year in water that contained levels of cesium twice as high as the Ucluelet sample, the radiation dose they would receive would still be more than one thousand times less than that of a single dental x-ray.

    Monitoring Effort

    Buesseler has had to rely on a crowd-funding and citizen-science initiative known as "Our Radioactive Ocean" to collect samples because no U.S. federal agency is responsible for monitoring radiation in coastal waters. The results are publicly available on the website OurRadioactiveOcean.org.

    “We expect more of the sites will show detectable levels of cesium-134 in coming months, but ocean currents and exchange between offshore and coastal waters is quite complex,” said Buesseler, “Predicting the spread of radiation becomes more complex the closer it gets to the coast and we need the public’s help to continue this sampling network.”

    Recent partnerships between Buesseler's group and a Canadian-funded program called InFORM, led by Jay Cullen at the University of Victoria, Canada, has added more than a dozen monitoring stations along the coast of British Columbia. In addition, upcoming cruises with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, will add more than 10 new sampling sites offshore. Also in 2015, a National Science Foundation-sponsored project led by WHOI physical oceanographer Alison Macdonald includes funding to analyze more than 250 seawater samples collected on a research ship travelling this May between Hawaii and the Aleutian Islands, Alaska.

    Source
    "What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence.
    The only consequence is what we do."

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts