Birds, butterflies, King Kong, Godzilla...
I happened to pick up a tweet that had a link to the presentation Professor Timothy Mousseau of University of South Carolina, discussing the effect of radiation on living organisms in the contaminated areas in Fukushima and in Chernobyl.
In February last year, Professor Mousseau announced the result of his initial research on birds in Fukushima Prefecture, and it was "an immediate negative consequence of radiation for birds".
From Professor Timothy Mousseau's presentation on March 11, 2013 the 1st day of the Fukushima Symposium by Helen Caldicott Foundation (where former PM Naoto Kan made a video appearance):
A humorous page with our favorite radiation mutant monsters:
"Note lack of decomposition" - Are we supposed to infer that irradiated trees don't decompose? Or is it just a matter of no water or moisture to expedite decomposition?
Number of birds plotted against the air dose rates, for both Fukushima and Chernobyl.
So, do birds avoid high radiation areas? Were there birds in those high radiation areas before the nuclear accident?
Or are we supposed to conclude that birds died off or failed to reproduce in the high radiation areas?
(Oh wait, is King Kong big because of irradiation?)
30-Day free trial by following the link.
Tokyo Time
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
27 comments:
Food irradiation was once (not sure if anymore) used to prevent decomposition (and who knows what other dangerous results!), so I'm not the least surprised that highly irradiated trees (which are themselves pretty tough to decompose) don't rot at all.
Birds, insects and other small animals usually have very short life cycles, what means that they incorporate radioactive materials as food, air particles, etc. very quickly, so they are probably, in most cases, unable to survive the effects of radioactivity for long. By comparison us humans, with our large bodies and long lives, are much tougher - what does not mean invulnerable at all, just that it may take longer to manifest.
Just some thoughts: Decomposition of trees is carried out by microbes, insects and fungi which apparently aren't able to perform their tasks very well in highly irradiated zones. If insects are in short supply then birds would be expected to hunt elsewhere for food.
Mousseau's presentation is worth watching. One of very few to conduct a long term study on the bird population of Chernobyl and now working on Fukushima as well.
Wertelecki's presentation was also very informative.
The life cycles of insects and birds are so much shorter than humans...
Too bad the industry doesn't fund research that could back up any of the "no immediate harm" claims it promotes.
Anon at 10:43AM, how does Prof Mousseau know the bird population before the accidents? Or he doesn't know? The lines in the charts look almost arbitrary.
In Hawaii, after fukushima, all flies went away for almost a year, I am sure other less noticeable insect populations were affected.
This would affect health and population of birds for sure.
To Anon at 10:43
did you read the presentation?
The research compares the number of birds in association with the level of radioactivity of their habitat.
The higher the radioactivity, the less bird.
And the number of tumors and\or physical deformations associated with the level of radioactivity. You can guess the results.
Excellent research.
>>(Oh wait, is King Kong big because of irradiation?)
Please let's be respectful.
There are many rumors of deformation in all species (including humans) both in Chernobyl and now starting in Japan as well. If we laugh at the image of king-kong, do you think the reality is better? Please be considerate.
A king-kong image is less shocking than the truth. And yes, radiation causes deformation and or mutations.
Why is he comparing Fukushima in 2011 with Chernobyl in 2006, 20 years after the accident? A lot of birds depend on humans being around, they get food from garbage and agriculture, etc., so no wonder they left once evacuations were completed.
Uh...So is King Kong a result of radiation or not? I thought he was naturally born big.
Why should we take a research like this seriously, when the researcher does not even show us (if he knows) if these birds were there before the accident?
No immediate harm still means potentially dangerous.
If I put a loaded gun to someone's head, there's no immediate harm until I pull the trigger. If I douse someone with kerosene, there's no immediate harm until they catch fire. That's not very safe.
Anon at 9:49PM, indeed you are beset with danger. The sky may fall at any moment, your bank may go bankrupt at any moment, you may be run over by a car at any moment.
Anon 12:13 - as far as my personal experience goes, the sky did not fall on me yet, my bank is still in business and I have never been run over by a car; however I had to deal with nuclear poo in my food twice in the last 30 years. Can we try to avoid blowing up any more of those stinky pressure cookers please?
In the presentation there is a graph relating sperm abnormalities to Rems per Hour.
Can this be presented in mS/h for a human being?
Or does anybody know about such information?
Yours,
tigny
I attended the conference and watched the presentation. Tim Morriseau has performed numerous non-invasive tests on birds (and collected data on other organisms)in a sampling of areas with different radiation levels. He has been conducting similar research in Chernobyl for many years. We are lucky that he is doing this research. His aim is to learn about what the specific effects (of radiation) on bird populations have been, through careful observations and research. The areas he studied in Fukushima were in relatively close proximity- similar conditions except for the radiation levels. I don't think this research is OT.
So, does he have data before the accident or not?
It's so OT. http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2011/06/features/half-life?page=all
He and his research partner are attention-seekers like many so-called experts cropping up after Fukushima. Since Chernobyl may have become more difficult for them to enter, they are switching to Fukushima.
@ 4:20
Did you read the link you posted?
6 people who have worked in some way on the issue and some secret,unavailable,classified,lost,or destroyed Russian/Ukrainian information.
Looking at Mousseau's CV does not give the impression that he is an "attention-seeker".
There is no shortage of ornithologists in Japan. Do you know of any studies being done by them?
http://cricket.biol.sc.edu/mousseau/mousseau-cv.pdf
Well, I suspect the place where so-called nuclear experts pop up most often in the world is NHK: they interview some old man who is presented as "専門家" without further qualifications, he tells you "don't worry" and you never see him again.
to Anonymous April 1, 2013 at 4:20 PM
>>He and his research partner are attention-seekers
I would say that many people don't want the truth to be known. Are you one of them?
>>Why should we take a research like this seriously, when the researcher does not even show us (if he knows) if these birds were there before the accident?
huh? He does show this. When he shows how many birds there are where there is little radiation and how many birds there are where there is more radiation. Before Fukushima = no radiation, after Fukushima = different zones with different levels of radioactivities and different count of birds. Get a job, do something, your question was a little bit simple.
Smug anon at 5:47PM, you still don't answer my question. How many birds were there in those locations BEFORE THE ACCIDENTS? You go get a job.
I am very tired of people who raise extreme alarms like Mousseau, Caldicott, Gundersen, and others, and those who believe in them and disdain others who are skeptical of their extreme claims.
There are always job openings at the Fuku NPP in the clean up department. They are always short of people. Just sayin'...
Absolutely: all the pro-nuclear scum (so much talk and no action) should volunteer for such a job. After all radiation is nearly harmless, right? Just "rumors" which should be confronted with happiness and optimism - or so say the Japanese authorities, who are not going there even for a visit... but well.
Yeah, asking for clarifications regarding another example of pseudo-science coming from the anti-nuke side means you have to go work at the plant. Great logic.
My logic is that you assume your responsibility and go die trying to solve the mess you got us in. I blame pro-nuclears for all the children who have no future other than a most painful death in Europe and East Asia.
If not to the plant, go work to one of those hospices for the disgraced Chernobyl children. I would not be able to bear the horror and pain (and really I've always been anti-nuclear so I bear no guilt) but you must because you are guilty of it.
Go and assume the consequences of what you have done, pay the price of your ideology.
I haven't done jack, you are discussing with some imaginary "pro-nuke" people that are not here. Or do you think that not believing obvious bullshit coming from Musseau or whatever other "expert" makes someone "pro-nuke"?
It seems obvious to me that Japanese biologists and ornithologists have kept records of birds in the past, very especially in such a "nature worshipping" kind of culture as is the Japanese. You are challenging that on no grounds in an obvious attempt to throw shit to the fan, as they say, what makes me and others think that you are a pro-nuke who cherry-picks criticisms in order to sow skepticism, just as the Japanese authorities talk of "harmful rumors" and blah-blah.
Google "birds Chernobyl" or "Chernobyl bird studies" and you will get pages of analysis, short term and long term, done in satisfactory manner. Everything(well, almost) is already known and nobody is suppressing this information. For any potential new results, studies done in Fukushima should begin with stricter criteria than Russian/Ukrainian studies otherwise it is waste of time.
Post a Comment