Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 29-03-2014, 14:35   #16
Registered User
 
sabray's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wash DC
Boat: PETERSON 44
Posts: 3,169
Re: Debris from Fukushima

They found it they just can't run into it. Your thoughts I think were like mine it's. Big place and you are unlikely to find that one piece of trash right in your bow


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________

__________________
sabray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2014, 14:39   #17
Registered User
 
Wonderinlost's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: NJ
Boat: 1972 Aquarius 23'
Posts: 229
Re: Debris from Fukushima

No one wants to reveal what they know intelligence wise on how much they can really see....

OTOH since flying all around there keep a eye out for S/V Nina. It was the first thing that crossed my mind since they have almost every country all around searching. It appears the vessel is still unacounted for.

wondering around with no destionation
__________________

__________________
Wonderinlost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2014, 19:28   #18
Nearly an old salt
 
goboatingnow's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,649
Images: 3
Re: Debris from Fukushima

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderinlost View Post
No one wants to reveal what they know intelligence wise on how much they can really see....

OTOH since flying all around there keep a eye out for S/V Nina. It was the first thing that crossed my mind since they have almost every country all around searching. It appears the vessel is still unacounted for.

wondering around with no destionation

The difficultly for both mh370 and S/v nina are the same. They are not on the surface

Dave


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
Check out my new blog on smart boat technology, networking and gadgets for the connected sailor! - http://smartboats.tumblr.com
goboatingnow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2014, 10:35   #19
JAL
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5
Re: Debris from Fukushima

Thanks to all thus far for your constructive observations of what you've witnessed out at sea in the region in question. As we connect more of the dots in that area, i.e. get a better picture from more testimonies of what sailors have encountered in that region and share those experiences here at CF, those of us who wish to navigate through that area then might have a better idea of what to expect, more or less.

To Jim Cate regarding:

"And for the chap who postulates waving a "Geiger Counter" around so that HE will know the truth... seems like you would know nothing new because both the instrumentation and the technique are inappropriate to the measurement. Better leave that investigation to folks who know what they are doing!"

... It appears a rather inexpensive, $600 Geiger Counter, being "waved" around seafood by a high school student, has both the "instrumentation" and the "technique", appropriate to make headlines all over the world. But what does a 10th grader know, right?

School Science Project Reveals High Levels Of Fukushima Nuclear Radiation in Grocery Store Seafood

and to K_V_B regarding:

"sometimes when the authorities say "move on, nothing to see here" there is indeed nothing to see..."

I think you'll find in the above article and the questions that are posed are perfect examples why we are beginning to see a great awakening to how corrupt, controlling and manipulative our present governments are (Canadian and American). Frankly, now a days, when an authority says "move on, nothing to see here", that's when the "DANGER", RED FLAG should go up for all of us.
__________________
JAL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2014, 23:46   #20
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Switzerland
Boat: So many boats to choose from. Would prefer something that is not an AWB, and that is beachable...
Posts: 1,241
Re: Debris from Fukushima

Quote:
Originally Posted by JAL View Post
I think you'll find in the above article and the questions that are posed are perfect examples why we are beginning to see a great awakening to how corrupt, controlling and manipulative our present governments are (Canadian and American). Frankly, now a days, when an authority says "move on, nothing to see here", that's when the "DANGER", RED FLAG should go up for all of us.
I'm sorry, but didn't you just lecture us about not believing the "Main Stream Media".
Now you ask us to consider an article that contains no hard facts, just suppositions, and that tries to bolster it's credibility by referring to those same MSM you tell us not to trust.
I mean, the article you linked to could serve quite nicely as an illustration of all the techniques used by the media to manipulate us. It provides no means to actually verify the claims it makes, it quotes out of context, it sensationalizes. The few "facts" it mention are intentionally vague. It is purposely written to exploit the ignorant.

I prefer to listen to scientists when the subject is science. The article you link to mentions scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (a very respected organisation) that indeed measured Ceasium from Fukushima on the waters of the Pacific.
You can read their take on it here:
https://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=833...3622&cid=94989
Read it.
It would have surprised me if they didn't. Radiation is very easy to detect. The school kid in your article should have tried the geiger counter on granite kitchen counter top. She'd be surprised. Radiation is literally everywhere. Everything is radioactive. And that includes you...
And it's because radiation is so easy to detect, even minute quantities, that scientiest find it very interesting. The release of radioactive isotopes from Fukushima offers an unique opportunity to study the way matter migrates through the Pacific. In Europe radioactive isotopes are used to study the movement of sand on North Sea beaches for example.
But also because radiation is so easy to detect and to trace to it's origin that I don't believe stories that claim that radiation levels at the US West Coast are of a level that would cause concern. It's plainly just not possible.
__________________
K_V_B is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2014, 23:50   #21
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Switzerland
Boat: So many boats to choose from. Would prefer something that is not an AWB, and that is beachable...
Posts: 1,241
Re: Debris from Fukushima

Quote:
Originally Posted by goboatingnow View Post
The difficultly for both mh370 and S/v nina are the same. They are not on the surface
And you can add to that a fact that is all to often overlooked: The Ocean is a mindbogglingly huge place...
__________________
K_V_B is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 31-03-2014, 00:45   #22
Senior Cruiser
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43
Posts: 6,707
Re: Debris from Fukushima

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_V_B View Post
And you can add to that a fact that is all to often overlooked: The Ocean is a mindbogglingly huge place...
And deep in places. The search area for MH370 has depths of 2-6000 meters - with most at the deeper end of that range. Even if they find something, recovering it for examination isn't going to be easy.
__________________
StuM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 31-03-2014, 02:44   #23
Eternal Member
 
monte's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Boat: Lagoon 400
Posts: 3,650
Images: 1
Re: Debris from Fukushima

A pretty unbalanced view here
The ocean is broken | Newcastle Herald
__________________
monte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-03-2014, 09:48   #24
Senior Cruiser
 
mikereed100's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Santa Barbara
Boat: 46' custom cat
Posts: 1,571
Images: 2
Re: Debris from Fukushima

We sailed from Yokohama to Kodiak last year and saw nothing beyond the occasional water bottle or fishing buoy. We had reinforced the bows in anticipation of this trip and slowed to 5 knots after dark, but never had any bumps in the night.
__________________
Mike

www.sailblogs.com/member/rumdoxy

Come to the dark side. We have cookies.
mikereed100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2014, 10:08   #25
JAL
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5
Re: Debris from Fukushima

“In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference presentation and journal publication.”

So, K_V_B, you’re a person of “Science”, you want to be convinced via objective analysis, verifying and validating the data though all the various procedures of protocol, before you can be convinced, “believe” the data to be accurate, “true” in your mind. That’s a worthy desire; commendable. Trouble is, “Science”, or better put, the “Science Community” is no longer a “Community”. Just as corruption is presently ravaging political systems, across the globe, TOP to bottom, the Science community is no longer immune from that same contagious infection, spread by selfishness, greed and desire for power and money. Scientists, like politicians, can have insatiable needs, too. Families to raise, high college tuitions for their kids, food for the table, and bills, bills and more bills (Many of us know what that’s like, yes?). And where does their paycheck come from? In many cases, “funding” comes from governments/corporations, who have a vested interest in the outcome.

The same lobbies that control and manipulate politicians, fund many in the scientific community, i.e. grants predicated on supporting certain “agendas”. Case in point, “Global Warming”. Billions of dollars, if not trillions, connected to that “Industry”. Many scientists believe it’s real and just as many believe it is a hoax. How is that possible in the Science Community if the evidence/data should be unbiased? Who’s at odds here, Science or the Scientific Community, an why? Then we have the nuclear industry where just as much money comes into play, as well as corruption. Many Scientists support it just as many Scientists deplore it. No, Science is no longer Science, at least from the point of view of those who have a vested interest in the results, the outcome. When people’s livelihoods and egos and false pride are a stake, throw out the objectivity, skew the results, the findings, the evidence (we’ve got a personal interest in the outcome).

Sometimes it takes a 10th grader in high school, with a $600 geiger counter, performing her own innocent experiments to wake the masses up to see the light and to shock Scientist out of their make-believe empirical world. She was doing it for fun, as a class project. No pressure. Wasn’t trying to impress her collegues or her handlers. The science community is just as divided as the cruising communty, who come to this forum, believing the Pacific ocean, and specifically the westcoast of America, is safe, or unsafe, from dangerous levels of radiation, “hot particles” spewing out from Fukushima on a daily basis, flowing in the waters and winds currents and contaminating fish, animals and humans. Radiation; the silent, invisible killer, it's not like floating debris that can be heard, felt and seen. Out of sight, out of mind.



Personally, when Arnie Gunderson says “I’m not eating Pacific Ocean fish” I believe him, but that’s just me being subjective.
__________________
JAL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2014, 09:50   #26
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Switzerland
Boat: So many boats to choose from. Would prefer something that is not an AWB, and that is beachable...
Posts: 1,241
Re: Debris from Fukushima

Quote:
Originally Posted by JAL View Post
No, Science is no longer Science, at least from the point of view of those who have a vested interest in the results, the outcome. When people’s livelihoods and egos and false pride are a stake, throw out the objectivity, skew the results, the findings, the evidence (we’ve got a personal interest in the outcome).
So basically all scientists have an agenda, and thus none can be trusted?

That illustrates you don't really have a clue how science works. You can quote the scientific method, but have no idea how it works. Scientists themselves are aware of their biases. You will notice that if you read real scientific papers.

Quote:
Sometimes it takes a 10th grader in high school, with a $600 geiger counter, performing her own innocent experiments to wake the masses up to see the light and to shock Scientist out of their make-believe empirical world. She was doing it for fun, as a class project. No pressure. Wasn’t trying to impress her collegues or her handlers.
But what did she prove? If you point a geiger counter at random objects it will go off. Really. Everything, literally everything is radioactive. I wonder what would have happend if that girl had chosen to point her counter at the granite counter tops in her parents kitchen (if they had such).
Trying to draw conclusions from what this girl did without doing further research violates everything in that first paragraph you quoted...

Quote:
. Radiation; the silent, invisible killer, it's not like floating debris that can be heard, felt and seen. Out of sight, out of mind.
Radiation is easier to find, prove and quantify than chemical pollution. I am a lot more worried about chemical pollution. You can not just point a device at a substance and know if it is poisonous or not. But you can point a device and know how radioactive it is.
Then once you know how radioactive something is you can then decide wether you should worry. Low levels of radioactivity are harmless.

In science measurements are everything. If someone tells me "I found radioactivity on shellfish" then I want to know "how much". Without that last piece the information is useless.

Quote:
Personally, when Arnie Gunderson says “I’m not eating Pacific Ocean fish” I believe him, but that’s just me being subjective.
Arnie Gundersons present occupation is spreading misinformation about Fukushima. I think we can safely ignore him, and anyone that finds him credible.

I mean, a lot of the stuff he claims is not even wrong...
__________________

__________________
K_V_B is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fukushima boatman61 Health, Safety & Related Gear 22 09-01-2014 10:56
Fukushima Nuclear Disaster. giant Health, Safety & Related Gear 16 20-09-2013 17:41
USCG Has 43-Mile Warning Area Around Fukushima rebel heart General Sailing Forum 40 17-11-2011 21:43
Debris in the Chesapeake svpattyd Atlantic & the Caribbean 3 20-09-2011 09:23
Your Thoughts on Floating Debris Avoidance? Leventdelamort Health, Safety & Related Gear 51 01-05-2011 05:57



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 23:37.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.