Translate

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

CANCER SPREADS IN PACIFIC MARINE LIFE BUT SCIENTISTS DON'T BLAME FUKUSHIMA RADIATION






[PHOTOS ABOVE, FROM THE TOP:A dead green turtle found stranded on Maui with grotesque tumors, a great white shark with mouth tumors and other shark with tumors, fish caught off America's Pacific coast, Pacific seals with lesions and tumors, Alaskan salmon with multiple tumors.]


Is Cancer Contagious? - American Cancer Society

"Jul 17, 2015 - Cancer is NOT contagious. A healthy person cannot “catch” cancer from someone who has it. There is no evidence that close contact or things like sex, kissing, touching, sharing meals, or breathing the same air can spread cancer from one person to another."

CANCER HAS NEVER, EVER BEEN SHOWN TO SPREAD FROM ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER BY CLOSE CONTACT.
NO ONE HAS EVER "CAUGHT" A CASE OF CANCER FORM ANOTHER PERSON, BUT "EXPERTS" ARE ASKING US TO BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING ALL OVER THE PACIFIC OCEAN AS MORE AND MORE MARINE SPECIES ARE FOUND TO HAVE CANCER.

THE CANCEROUS LESIONS AND TUMORS BEING FOUND IN MARINE LIFE ARE UNMISTAKABLE, THE MICROSCOPES DON'T LIE... FROM THE WESTERN SHORES OF THE PACIFIC TO THE SHORES OF NORTH, CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICAN NATIONS, MARINE ORGANISMS THAT LIVE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA TO THOSE LIKE MARINE MAMMALS WHO MUST REMAIN NEAR THE SURFACE IN ORDER TO BREATHE ARE ALL SHOWING UP WITH CANCERS.


GREAT WHITE SHARKS HAVE LONG BEEN CONSIDERED "IMMUNE" TO CANCER, BUT WE SAW THE FIRST CASE IN 2013 AND MANY SINCE THEN.


FROM MUSSELS TO WHALES, FROM URCHINS TO SEA BIRDS, SALMON TO POLAR BEARS, THE PACIFIC'S INHABITANTS ARE DYING OF CANCER AND WE ARE EXPECTED TO BELIEVE THIS IS DUE TO A "NEW FORM" OF CANCER WHICH SPREADS FROM ONE SPECIES TO ALL OTHERS. 


"In all the years I've been fishing I never caught any fish like this," said LEO volunteer Sam Kunaknana. "Caught 3 more sick fish with same markings and this time one had some kind of growths coming out from its mouth."

Other fish showing mysterious tumors include Pacific herring and Canadian whitefish. The growths have also been commented on by fishermen and marine biologists.

And it's not just Alaskan fish, but marine life all across the Pacific. Mysterious tumors have been observed in everything from shrimp and sea stars to sea lions and walruses. Polar bears and marine mammals have also been observed demonstrating unexplained hair loss, an early symptom of radiation poisoning.

Further afield, biologists recently discovered two disturbing firsts in the waters off Australia. In one case, reported in the Journal of Fish Diseases, a great white shark was found to have a tumor a foot long and a foot wide protruding from its mouth.

"This was a very unusual sight as we have never before seen a white shark with tumors," said study co-author Rachel Robbins.

Indeed, sharks had been believed to be mostly immune to tumors. Yet, recently, researchers also discovered a tumor on the head of a bronze whaler shark, also in Australian waters.

The other first was the discovery of human-style skin cancer on a coral fish in Australia's Great Barrier Reef."



HAS THIS NEW "CONTAGIOUS MOLLUSK CANCER THEORY" BEEN PROVEN BY ANY INDEPENDENT LABORATORY ON EARTH?
NO!


IT'S SIMPLY A NEW WAY TO EXPLAIN THE MASSIVE DIE-OFFS ALL OVER THE PACIFIC AND TO EXPLAIN AWAY THE FACT THESE ORGANISMS ARE DYING FROM RADIATION-INDUCED CANCERS.

AFTER THOUSANDS OF YEARS WITH NO REPORTS OF ANY SPECIES HAVING TRANSMITTED CANCER TO ONE OF ITS OWN KIND, TWO YEARS AGO WE STARTED GETTING REPORTS  OF JUST THAT...FIRST IN TASMANIAN DEVILS, "DISCOVERED" IN THE 1990s:


"Contagious cancer was discovered in the mid-1990s in Tasmanian devils, which spread malignant cells as they try to tear off one another’s faces. Though it may be hard to sympathize, devil facial tumor disease threatens the creatures with extinction.

One theory is that the animals are unusually vulnerable. Driven so close to extinction — by climate change, perhaps, or human predators — the species is lacking in genetic diversity. The cells of another devil injected through a vicious wound may seem so familiar that they are ignored by the recipient’s immune system. If some of the cells carry the mutations for the facial cancer, they might be free to flourish and develop into a new tumor."

WHY NOT CALL THAT "GENETIC PREDISPOSITION" LIKE OTHER SUCH INSTANCES OF CANCERS IN CERTAIN SPECIES ARE CALLED?

THEN, LAST YEAR, "CONTAGIOUS CANCER" WAS REPORTED SUPPOSEDLY FOUND IN DOGS:

"The condition, canine transmissible venereal tumor disease, is BELIEVED to have sprung into existence 11,000 years ago — as a single cell in a single dog — and has been circulating ever since.
(Why did this happen in dogs and not, say, cats? Perhaps because of what the authors demurely call the dogs’ “long-lasting coital tie” — the half an hour or so that a male and female are locked in intercourse, tearing genital tissues and providing the cancer cells with a leisurely crossing.)"


REALLY?
NO!
WHAT IS DESCRIBED AS "CONTAGIOUS CANCER" IN DOGS IS MORE ON THE ORDER OF THE HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS "CAUSING" CANCERS.


"High-risk HPV types cause approximately 5 percent of all cancers worldwide"

"TORN GENITAL TISSUES" CREATE A BREEDING GROUND FOR MANY DISEASES HUMANS AND ANIMALS CAN GET.
CANCER IS JUST ONE OF THOSE.

THAT NEW YORK TIMES REPORT CAME HOT ON THE HEELS OF THE "NEWLY DISCOVERED CONTAGIOUS CANCER SPREADING AMONG PACIFIC BIVALVES".
CLAMS, MUSSELS, COCKLES...

University of British Columbia, Jun 23, 2016:

"1st contagious cancer that spreads between species — UBC scientists were involved in research that found the first contagious cancer that can spread between species, CBC News reported. The leukemia-like disease seems to be widespread among shellfish with hinged shells, or bivalves, like clams, mussels and cockles."


NOT FOUND IN ALL INDIVIDUALS...
"Not all the mussels with leukemia had a contagious cancer – in some cases, the cancer had developed from an individual’s own cells, as is typically the case."



NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC REPORTED THIS "NEW DISCOVERY", BUT DO NOTICE THAT NATIONAL GEO STATES IT WAS FOUND IN ONLY ONE SMALL COMMUNITY OF MUSSELS IN ONE SPECIFIC PLACE:
"The transmissible cancer has been discovered in  mussels (Mytilus trossulus) at Copper Beach in West Vancouver, Canada.

"It’s astounding," biochemist and immunologist Stephen Goff of Columbia University says, "that a leukemia that has killed countless clams traces to one incidence of the disease… "

IT'S "ASTONISHING" ALRIGHT!
YET, WITHOUT ABSOLUTELY CONCLUSIVE PROOF, WE ARE EXPECTED TO BELIEVE IT.

WHEN NATIONAL GEO ASKED GOFF 'WHAT ABOUT OTHER MOLLUSK SPECIES', HE SAID IT WAS TOO SOON TO KNOW. 

THAT WAS LAST MONTH.
THE WASHINGTON POST GOT IN ON THE "NEW DISCOVERY":

"Washington Post, Jun 22, 2016

"All along the western Canadian coast, mussels are dying.

[NOT SO! AS WE SAW, THIS WAS IN ONE AREA IN WEST VANCOUVER AND NOT ALL SPECIMENS EXAMINED HAD THIS "NEW CANCER"!]

Their blobby bodies are swollen by tumors. The blood-like fluid that fills their interiors is clogged with malignant cells. They’re all sick with the same thing: cancer. And it seems to be spreading.
But when molecular biologist Stephen Goff biopsied these mussels, he found something strange. The tumor cells didn’t have the same DNA as their host. Instead, every mussel was being killed by the same line of cancerous cells, which were jumping from one individual to the next like a virus…

"Now you have to imagine these contagious cells floating around in the ocean, when when they managed to be picked up by a susceptible host they can establish a new infection," Goff said.

IMAGINE A CANCER CELL FLOATING AROUND IN A HIGH-SALT ENVIRONMENT WITH NO HOST TO KEEP IT ALIVE AND ATTACKING A HOST LIKE SOME SORT OF MARINE PARASITE MIGHT????
IS THE MAN DAFT?

VIRUS?
FUNNY HE SHOULD MENTION VIRUS, AS THAT, NOT CONTAGIOUS CANCER, WAS WHAT "SCIENTISTS" WERE BLAMING MASS MARINE DIE-OFFS ON JUST 2 YEARS AGO.


NBC News , NOVEMBER 17, 2014:
"Scientists may have fingered the culprit responsible for a mysterious epidemic that has killed millions of starfish… the disease was a relatively common parvovirus found in invertebrates that rose to epidemic levels due to overpopulation, a genetic mutation or other UNKNOWN ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS.

[THEY NICELY COVERED THEIR BUTTS WITH THAT WORD "UNKNOWN".]


PBS also hopped aboard the virus explanation in 2014, ALSO ON NOVEMBER 17:

"
They said it’s a virus that’s different from all other known viruses infecting marine organisms. They’ve dubbed it “sea star associated densovirus."

THEN, PBS TOLD US JUST HOW DAMNED NEAR IMPOSSIBLE SUCH A DIAGNOSIS IS:

"
Figuring out what brings on marine diseases is rare, especially among invertebrates. And identifying what virus is to blame is particularly difficult because a drop of seawater contains about 10 million viruses.
Scientists don’t yet know what sparked the seemingly benign virus to transform into the perpetrator of what’s considered the largest marine disease outbreak ever recorded.

SURELY IT WAS NOT THE RISING LEVELS OF CESIUM, IODINE-131 AND STRONTIUM-90 IN PACIFIC OCEAN WATERS, AS WOODS HOLE'S OWN MAP SHOWED BACK IN 2015, SURELY NOT, RIGHT?
BUT THEN WE'RE TOLD IT ISN'T REALLY A VIRUS KILLING THEM!
IT'S BACTERIA!

"But densoviruses don’t usually cause their hosts to die. What seems to be happening, Hewson explained, is that the sea star associated densovirus weakens a starfish’s immune system. That makes the starfish more susceptible to bacterial infections, which ultimately lead to the gruesome deaths associated with the syndrome – lesions forming, arms falling off and stars melting into piles of mush.
Hewson said it may be possible to use antibiotics to help starfish fight off those bacterial infections."


OTHER "EXPERT COMMENTS:
Dr. Ian Lipkin, Columbia Univ., pathogen discovery specialist: “The authors… note themselves, there is much more work to be done before we will know whether the densovirus they describe is necessary and sufficient to cause disease.”

  • Drew Harvell, Cornell ecologist: “The million-dollar question in all this: Why now? What is it that changed that created the conditions for this outbreak? And we don’t have the answer to that. But certainly a viral mutation would be one explanation.”
  • Carol Blanchette, Univ. of Santa Barbara: “It is likely thatenvironmental causes… have played an important role [and the virus] may only be one part of the story.”
  • Harvell: “Their disappearance is an experiment in ecological upheaval the likes of which we’ve never seen.”

WHAT A BUNCH OF DOUBLE-SPEAK!
ANY FIRST-YEAR MICROBIOLOGY OR HISTOLOGY STUDENT WOULD BE INSULTED BY THIS GARBAGE!

REMEMBER WHEN THE TEAR ROOM REPORTED ON THE "MYSTERIOUS" DEATHS OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF SEALS/SEA LIONS AND THEN, SURPRISE!,  THEY WERE FOUND TO HAVE LEUKEMIA?

REMEMBER WHEN SOME OF THESE SAME 'SCIENTISTS' ADMITTED THAT SEALS AND POLAR BEARS ON THE ARCTIC SEA ICE WHEN FUKUSHIMA BLEW HAD BEEN EXPOSED TO EXTRAORDINARY DOSES OF RADIATION?

NATIONAL GEO DID ITS PART, AGAIN, TO CONVINCE US OF THE IMPOSSIBLE, BUT MAY HAVE DONE THE OPPOSITE.

AND IN A LATER ARTICLE, NG MAYBE BLEW BUESSELER'S STATEMENTS WE'LL READ IN A BIT OUT OF THE WATER:


AUGUST 9,2013
"
But even after the immediate crisis eased, scientists have continued to find radioactive contamination in the waters off the plant. Ken Buesseler, a senior scientist with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution who has analyzed thousands of samples of fish from the area, said he’s continued to find the high levels of cesium-134, a radioactive isotope that decays rapidly.

That indicates it’s still being released. "It’s getting into the ocean, no doubt about it," he said. "The only news was that they finally admitted to this."


In a 2012 study, Jota Kanda, an oceanographer at Toyko University of Marine Science and Technology, calculated that the plant is leaking 0.3 terabecquerels (trillion becquerels) of cesium-137 per month and a similar amount of cesium-134.

The level of radioactive contamination that the plant was spewing in the immediate aftermath of the disaster, estimated to be from 5,000 to 15,000 terabecquerels, according to Buesseler.

For a comparison, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima released 89 terabecquerels of cesium-137 when it exploded.
  


AND TRITIUM?
Another potential worry: The makeup of the radioactive material being leaked by the plant has changed. Buesseler said the initial leak had a high concentration of cesium isotopes, but the water flowing from the plant into the ocean now is likely to be proportionally much higher in strontium-90.
The tanks (on the plant site) have 100 times more strontium than cesium, Buesseler said. He believes that the cesium is retained in the soil under the plant, while strontium and tritium, another radioactive substance, are continuing to escape.

IT WAS GETTING INTO THE PACIFIC 2 YEARS AFTER THE BIG BLOW, AND IT'S GETTING INTO THE PACIFIC TODAY... BUT WE'RE TO BELIEVE ALL LIFE THAT SPENDS 24 HOURS A DAY, 3656 DAYS A YEAR IN THAT OCEAN IS JUST FINE WITH THAT?
NO WAY!

AND EVEN FURTHER BACK, BEFORE THE CAUSE OF MARINE DEATH WAS "CONTAGIOUS CANCER", BEFORE IT WAS A VIRUS, BEFORE IT WAS ALGAE BLOOMS, WE WERE TOLD IT WAS WARMER WATERS KILLING EVERYTHING, AND WHEN THAT DIDN'T PAN OUT, "SCIENTISTS WERE MYSTIFIED".

WHEN IT WASN'T JUST STARFISH "MELTING AWAY" BUT ALSO SEA URCHINS AND SEA CUCUMBERS, AGAIN, "SCIENTISTS WERE BAFFLED".

AND EVERY TIME THOSE SCIENTISTS GET "BAFFLED" WE GET A NEW HYPOTHETICAL CAUSE FOR WHAT'S KILLING EVERYTHING IN THAT OCEAN.

WE GET YET ANOTHER "NEVER-SEEN-BEFORE", HASTILY CONCOCTED PISS-POOR EXPLANATION THAT IS NEVER PROVEN, NEVER REPLICATED, JUST TOSSED TO THE PUBLIC SO NONE QUESTION THE POSSIBILITY THAT ALL THESE DEATHS AND ALL THESE CANCERS AND 'VIRUSES' AND ALGAE BLOOMS ARE CAUSED BY THE 5+ YEARS OF FUKUSHIMA LEAKS, FALLOUT, BURNING NUCLEAR WASTE MATERIALS ALL OVER JAPAN AND TEPCO's ONGOING WASTE WATER DUMPING CONTAMINATING THE OCEAN, THE AIR ABOVE THE OCEAN AND MARINE LIFE FROM THE ARCTIC TO THE TIP OF SOUTH AMERICA AND FROM THE CHINESE AND RUSSIAN COASTS TO THE WEST COAST OF AMERICA AND BEYOND.

RADIATION HAS BEEN KNOWN TO CAUSE CANCER SINCE BEFORE WE DROPPED THE BOMBS ON JAPAN, BEFORE THE TESTS DONE ON THE BOMB.
RADIATION CAUSES LEUKEMIA, ALL TYPES OF CANCERS, IN EVERY ORGANISM EVER EXPOSED TO IT.


BACK THEN, BEFORE THE NEWS MEDIA BEGAN TO GLOSS OVER THE POSSIBLE LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF FUKUSHIMA ON ALL LIFE, WOODS HOLE WARNED:


"Every additional source of radioactivity carries some additional health risk, but these risks vary with many factors, including the dose (how much a person is exposed to and for how long) and which isotopes you are exposed to, as well as individual sensitivities—there is a higher concern in children, for example.

The site of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant is an ongoing source of radionuclides (pdf) in to the ocean—something I've seen evidence of in my data and published since 2011.


[MY NOTE: DID YOU GET THAT? HOW LONG ONE IS EXPOSED TO RADIATION IS A FACTOR IN GETTING CANCER AND FUKUSHIMA IS AN ONGOING CONTAMINANT, SO FISH, OR ANYTHING, LIVING IN CONTINUAL CONTAMINATION, EATING FROM THE CONTAMINATED FOOD CHAIN JUST MIGHT GET CANCER 'PDQ', DARE WE IMAGINE?]


What has been released from the Fukushima reactors and how dangerous is it?

Releases from the Fukushima reactors have included dozens of radioactive elements, but with regard to materials released into the ocean, most of the attention has been on three radioactive isotopes released in large amounts: iodine-131, cesium-137, and cesium-134.

Cesium-137, for example, has a half-life of 30 years and so, depending on its concentration, is a potentially serious health threat for decades or centuries.
Iodine-131, on the other hand, has a half-life of just 8 days and so loses much of its potency after just days and effectively disappears after one to two months.
[IT DISAPPEARS ONLY IF IT IS NOT BEING PUMPED INTO THE ENVIRONMENT EVERY DAY, AS IT IS FROM FUKUSHIMA.]

Another radionuclide of concern, cesium-134, has a half-life of two years...


Strontium-90 has a half-life of 29 years—nearly identical to that of cesium-137...

Plutonium was also released from Fukushima, but in concentrations even lower than strontium.

Looking ahead, levels of any Fukushima contaminants along the West Coast of North America are predicted to peak around 2015 or 2016...

[THEY WON'T 'PEAK' AS LONG AS THERE IS DAILY RELEASE OF ALL THOSE NAMED...AND THEN SOME OTHERS.]

D
irect collection and analysis of radionuclides in water samples is the best way to determine how much contamination is in the ocean that poses an exposure risk to people and marine life.

NEXT IS ONE OF THE DUMBEST AND MOST MISLEADING STATEMENTS MADE BY KEN BUESSELER FROM WOODS HOLE  (WHOI) :


Most fish do not migrate far from their spawning grounds, which is why some fisheries off Fukushima remain closed. But some species, such as the Pacific bluefin tuna, swim long distances and could pick up cesium in their feeding grounds off Japan before crossing the Pacific. However, cesium is a salt like potassium, and it will begin to flush out of exposed fish soon after they enter waters with LOWER contamination FROM Fukushima."

WHAT ABOUT THE FOOD CHAIN?
TUNA FEED ALL THE TIME AND EVERYTHING THEY'RE EATING OUT THERE HAS "SOME" RADIATION IN IT.
KENNY DOESN'T ADDRESS BIOACCUMULATION AT ALL!

ALSO NOTE THAT HE DOES SAY "LOWER CONTAMINATION FROM FUKUSHIMA"
The continued release of radionuclides from groundwater and leaking tanks at Fukushima nuclear power plants site needs to be watched closely, as the character or mix of radionuclides is changing. One example is the higher levels of strontium-90 contained in groundwater and in storage tanks that are leaking into the ocean. Because strontium-90 mimics calcium in humans and animals, it is taken up by and concentrated in bones, where it remains for long periods of time (it has a half-life of 29 years and it is is not replaced as quickly in the body as cesium).

What we see is that the levels of cesium in the ocean are decreasing faster than strontium near the Fukushima nuclear power plant site.

SO, MORE STRONTIUM IS INDEED BEING DUMPED INTO AND IS BEING DETECTED NOW THAN IN THE BEGINNING OF THIS DISASTER.
Given that strontium concentrates in bones, this radionuclide could become a larger concern in small fish such as sardines, which are often eaten whole.
Radiation levels in seafood should continue to be monitored, of course.

CAN'T EAT AS MANY AS WE USED TO, KENNY, SARDINES ARE AMONG THE LARGEST DIE-OFFS WE'VE HAD SINCE "FUKU"... BILLIONS OF SARDINES HAVE DIED IN MANY PLACES SINCE THE WOODS HOLE "CALMING" INFO WAS WRITTEN. 

AND IS ANYONE MONITORING OUR SEAFOOD?
NOT OUR GOVERNMENT AGENCIES!

NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!
THEY SEE NO NEED TO, THEY SAY.

THE EPA SHUT DOWN MONITORING STATIONS ALL OVER AMERICA WHEN THEY BEGAN TO SHOW ALARMING RISES IN RADIATION LEVELS, SAID THEY WERE "BROKEN" AND NO MONEY TO FIX THEM, AND OTHER NONSENSE AND OUTRIGHT LIES.

EVERYONE IS FREE TO BELIEVE THE BILLIONS OF MARINE DEATHS EVERY YEAR SINCE FUKUSHIMA ARE CAUSED BY VIRUSES, CONTAGIOUS CANCERS OR FROSTY THE SNOWMAN FOR ALL I CARE, BUT SOME BELIEVE OTHERWISE, AND, SOMEWHERE, THE PROOF THAT IT IS RADIATION EXISTS AND WILL BE REVEALED AFTER THE"EXPERTS" CAN'T PROVE WITHOUT DOUBT THAT IT IS NONE OF THE ABOVE.

MEANWHILE, MASS MARINE DEATHS ARE SPREADING...THE NORTH SEA, THE CARIBBEAN, THE INDIAN OCEAN, ANTARCTICA, INLAND, UP OUR RIVERS, EVEN IN THE GREAT LAKES.

TIME FOR ANOTHER FAIRY TALE TO EXPLAIN THIS, SOMETHING THE PUBLIC WILL SWALLOW, YET AGAIN, UNTIL IT, TOO, IS PROVEN LUDICROUSLY IMPOSSIBLE.



2 comments:

  1. Excellent article! I read your website all the time. You, Maija, and others provide we readers with clear and concise information. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Weez, many thanks, but Maja's knowledge is far, far superior to mine. I just get "pissed-off" when I read "THEORIES" that ignore FACTS. Your 'Weez' brought back fond memories of the lady I called my "other mother" as we kids called her 'Weez', for Louise. Blessings like rain. I hope you are well.

      Delete