Please share far and wide!

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Chtin Structures Damaged By Low Level Radiation -- Krill, Bees, Sponges, Fungi and More

stock here
I believe that I may have discovered the smoking gun describing how radiation can be killing off so many important parts of the food chain, and decay chain on land and in water.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2016/02/a-scientific-basis-for-destruction-of.html


Report comment

  • Stock – I think you very well have found a key connection between persistent radiation exposure for the bottom of the chain critters, which, of course, when gone, will cause everyone above them to die off also.
    It's a real shame that gov scientists are still whining about not knowing what's up. They know full well what's going on. Good luck to them if they really believe it isn't at least in part due to Fukushima (chemtrails to consider) and are still consuming Pacific Ocean derived products. Northern Hemisphere getting dosed for long enough now, the data will swing up… the death data, that is. Good luck.


    Report comment

    • Liver cancer WAY up already. Others shall follow.
      I spoke with 2 marine biologists in Hawaii this trip…they are very familiar with chitin, but give me that "are you from fucking outer-space" look when I mention destruction via radiation.


      Report comment

  • Fukushima Pacific Ocean Heavy Metal Radioactive Plutonium; How It Bioconcentrates In Mussels, Sea Stars, Chitons, Clams, Oysters, Fish; Arnie Gunderson On Hot Particle Radiation And Bioaccumulation
    http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/01/fukushima-pacific-ocean-radiation-and.html


    Report comment

    • moonshellblue moonshellblue
      Dr. Goodheart, I just wanted to Thank You for all you extensive info found on your excellent blog. You have done an absolutely awesome job relaying every aspect of this horrific nuclear accident.


      Report comment

      • TY; appreciate that. It 'only' took five years and help from a WHOLE A TEAM of Enenewsers.. Thanks for all of the help one and all.
        Could not have done a fraction of that without the team here, including of course, ENENEWS. Thanks Admin.


        Report comment

        • Angela_R
          Well Dr. Goodheart, I am not part of your team. On the previous thread I drew attention to some comments placed in an article on your website. These show my user name.
          It is astounding to note that after my user name appears, a comment that may have originated on this website, yet it continues and no demarcation is made between my comment and the following, no authorship for the text in-between and then my username again, which implies that everything written above was written by Angela_R. Yes, there are some lines there that I wrote on THIS SITE! – Dr.
          But there are statements there, that I did not write.
          Sloppy editing? No Doctor, because as you are aware I have never posted on your website.
          I am not and never have been, part of Group Think.


          Report comment

          • HoTaters HoTaters
            Angela_R, I'm beginning to wonder if some individuals "hacking" or trolling this site are stealing IP addresses and/or identities. It's not hard to copy someone's image and create a bogus identity and avatar picture. It's possible to capture an image and just re-post it. Users can change their onscreen user names.
            If Admin doesn't have time to monitor this activity, it's possible to fake peoples' identities. I think it's probably somewhat easy to do it. I wonder if there is a way for Admin to make this site more secure w/o having us pay for user privileges. I'd pay to join. Maybe those of us who are financially stable can "kick in" for guest users, after they prove themselves to be reasonable (not combative) online commenters.
            I have to wonder, because some of the comments made to me by Praising Truth didn't at ALL sound like things the Anne I've known here would ever say. I have to wonder if someone hasn't hacked her identity here.
            A lot of posters have made comments which sound totally out of character for them. So I'm really beginning to wonder if this identity hacking isn't happening more than we realize.
            It's just hard to believe people like Anne, who always seemed like a nice person and genuinely concerned about other people, could suddenly be so different.
            .


            Report comment

            • HoTaters HoTaters
              I don't want to single out PT, but it's the only individual I can remember seeing comments from right now, which were so out of character. And she claims she didn't make some of the comments to me which I saw.
              Forgive me, PT, I don't want to offend you. I'm giving Anne, you, and anyone else who thinks this may be happening the benefit of the doubt. PT said she didn't make some of the comments I'd asked her about.
              Now that I've heard this from you, too, I strongly suspect someone is being "us" for a day, then changing identities. What a nasty way to stir up and fling poo all around here, if this is really happening.
              The perfect "divide and conquer" strategy?
              Stock, what do you think?
              Doc G?
              Jebus?
              Code?
              Hillbilly?
              Obvious?
              DUD?
              Heart of the Rose?
              Obe?
              Tacomagroove?
              irhologram?
              Onto?
              ISeePinkClouds?
              Matty?
              RobG?
              AirSepTech?
              All you other long time posters? (Don't want to neglect anyone here. Thinking of who has been posting a lot recently, who comes to mind.) What do you think?


              Report comment

            • HoTaters HoTaters
              Many of us have had disagreements over the years, but I find it hard to believe some of the comments I've seen recently were made by people who have posted here for years now.


              Report comment

            • HoTaters HoTaters
              Doc, just to be clear, the statement above has nothing to do with you, just wondering how some long time commenters here might have had their ID's hijacked.


              Report comment

            • ISeePinkClouds ISeePinkClouds
              Yes. HoTators. I have had my machine hijacked here. The hacker took over Permissions in Windows 7,made himself administrator,and remotely controlled my machine. That is one way a hacker can assume your identity,and he can operate without being detected.
              You will remember this was when Vox Dei was here. Vox Dei said at the time,in reference to the attacks we were experiencing,and I may not have the quote absolutely accurate,"a gift from my friends at the CIA/NSA."
              Stock and Sickputer will remember. I think they too had to reinstall their operating system. Yes,and Dr. Goodheart lost videos and other information from AGRP.
              So,yes,it is not hard to steal an identity. I would not be surprised to find that this type,and maybe new hacks,are being used to "divide and conquer" here on ENENews,or Nuke Pro,even AGRP. Yes,we should consider this possibility.
              Peace


              Report comment

              • I had a massive machine takeover, and never seen nothing like it. Stuxnet "quality" stuff. From clicking on a link posted by a troll.
                cost me over 1.5 days, AFTER I decided to throw in the towel …


                Report comment

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
                Kode ShutDown here…expect millions of more posts on k40 and 4x as many refuting them


                Report comment

              • HoTaters HoTaters
                ISeePinkClouds, I do remember that. In 2012, I made a comment very critical of the DOE, I think. Later that afternoon I was locked out of my Maclaptop. The next day I found an odd file in someone's name. It was a Senior L-Martin Administrator from Langley, VA. Worked in high level security clearance jobs as lead editor for technical writing projects. Thousands and thousands of names and contact information in a computer file, dumped on my laptop.
                Unnerving, to say the least.
                Beware the thought police.
                Remember mon ami saying what an idiot I am? How "everyone "realizes it, including Arclight? Well, Arc and I had a little chat about security issues, and I got some insight from that conversation. Arc was getting some pretty overtly hostile treatment for his position, as some of us may recall from his comments.
                He had to change his strategy to continue his work.
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHNmXAyjqNM


                Report comment

            • AirSepTech AirSepTech
              To be honest HT, I do not think it is so much about ID 'hijacking', it is more about 'using' someone's ID
              Attaching 'their comment' before or after a comment not made by them, and no indication thereof. That was Angela's complaint.
              Now if the comment you are 'associated' with is not to your liking, or is not 'creditable', how do you feel? How do you feel not knowing it may be going on?
              Data mining.
              Unsolicited use of ones comments.
              Information that may be incorrect or not creditable.
              It may or may not be legal.
              Is it ethical?


              Report comment

              • HoTaters HoTaters
                AirSepTech, technically speaking, you're right re: using an ID vs. ID hijacking. Unapproved use of ID's probably happens much more often & is not the same as browser hijacking.
                Was thinking of hijacking in the general sense. We have had instances of hijacking here too. There have been at least 3-5 hostile computer takeovers. Someone with a lot of hacking ability has done damage to several of our computers. That is serious. I had a Langley spook operative take my laptop over & drop an info. bomb on it.
                RE: Angela's original complaint, it has happened to me, too. Several of my comments ended up on 3rd party sites without my knowledge. If they're not taken out of context, then IMO there's not an issue. Common courtesy would dictate letting someone know you'd like to use their comment and re-post it. There is a place for making comments & copyrighting one's material. Was joking about that last night. This isn't the place!
                I'm not going to address the posting on 3rd party websites directly. Angela's concern noted.
                Was adding to her concerns & pointing out there are a lot of other issues now.
                The intent was not to diminish the seriousness of what she was saying. How would I feel? Well, it has happened to me several times. My comments and intent weren't distorted, so I didn't have a problem with it except I wasn't informed it had been done.


                Report comment

                • HoTaters HoTaters
                  When the comment is put into a context not originally intended, yeah, that bugs me. So does having comments posted all over 3rd party websites w/o my knowledge.
                  RE: the copyright thing, we have to expect that this is a forum and people might want to comment further on something we've said.
                  Hate the data mining, but it's probably going on all the time.
                  Don't know about whether or not taking someone's comments elsewhere (3rd party site) w/o their knowledge or consent is legal or not.
                  Am not aware it's illegal, but my personal ethics wouldn't allow me to do that.
                  I don't get upset if someone takes part of a post I made here and adds their own perspective. If it stays here & I see it, 'dont have a problem with it, usually. That's often how the dialogue takes place. That kind of thing should be expected.


                  Report comment

                  • HoTaters HoTaters
                    Doc (I think) and stock have quoted a couple of things I said. It was awhile ago. That was respectfully done & it wasn't a problem.
                    Found one of my comments on a 3rd party site once that had stories that were WAAAAAY out of domain I operate in, so to speak. There was a note of hysteria at that site and what I can only describe as a tone of general paranoia about everything. I certainly don't want to be associated with that kind of "news" site.
                    Am not going to say what site it was now. Not a site belonging to anyone who posts here, as far as I know.


                    Report comment

              • HoTaters HoTaters
                Well, it's a little disingenuous to say it doesn't bother me when someone makes a reference to something I said then completely twists it and makes statements having no bearing on what I said.
                'Bugs me when it's done here. It's like character assassination. Borders on libel sometimes. That has happened to me.
                There's a lot of total DREK going on here right now. Appears to be an intentional disruption of the site. What should be done?


                Report comment

            • Its All True Its All True
              Ho taters – How nice of you to offer to pay extra for poor people to participate, as long as you approve of what they're saying…


              Report comment

              • HoTaters HoTaters
                Its All True, that would be a decision Admin as Moderator or the Moderator would make. But we could crowd source people who might not be able to afford a membership fee. Something along the lines of what NETC does. That's just $20 per year.
                Was thinking those who can afford it can anonymously help to crowd source membership if someone can't afford it.
                Admin or someone running the site would make the call. Perhaps vet "newcomers" for 90 or 180 days. If no REPORTS or complaints, then crowd sourcing can pay for the person's membership.
                Why would you make an assumption I'd be the person giving the "stamp of approval" ? Just not the way I do things. That one person here would be "calling the shots" is your perception. Please own that.
                A consensus approach wouldn't work, there are too many of us.
                But it would probably mean Admin would need the help of a Moderater. Not sure if that can be done.
                It was all just a thought and wanting to help those who might not be able to get full membership perks (whatever that might be) w/o crowd sourcing.


                Report comment

                • HoTaters HoTaters
                  NETC membership is, or was $20 per year (to clarify).
                  Would never pursue this without being able to discuss it with Admin and have Admin's approval.
                  But IMO we need to start finding a solution to the constant bickering, flame wars, trolling, and general disruption. Or this site may crash and burn.
                  Don't want to see that happen. It has been a very good source of new & wonderful input, a valuable resource for years.



          • HoTaters HoTaters
            Angela_R, sorry, I didn't mean to change the subject and detract from your comment.
            Think your concerns are valid, and just my personal opinion things like what you're describing happen and are of concern.
            A lot of other issues, too, wanted to point some of them out. It's getting to be kind of a free-for-all here.
            Maybe it's time for Admin or someone (Moderator?) to rein it in a little bit? Has to be Admin's decision.


            Report comment

      • HoTaters HoTaters
        Yes, he has put a lot of great information together, moonshellblue. Good to see you here, by the way. Hope you're well, happy, joyous, blessed.


        Report comment

  • HoTaters HoTaters
    stock, imo you might need to share credit for that one with Obe and me, at least in part. Obe came up with his hypothesis re: marine creatures' exoskeletons a few years ago.
    And hasn't Code been talking about chitin, or is that just you? What other elements come into play here?
    A vital question I think needs to be asked here, is, what radionuclides are mimicking the building blocks of skeletons and exoskeletons, and how (in terms of chemistry) is that damaging those structures in living creatures? Strontium 90, Plutonium, and more.
    Here is some discussion by way of analogy:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3546300/
    Do you remember Obe mentioning this in relation to "sea snot" and the disintegration of the sea stars?
    I mentioned Calcium Carbonate as having a vital role in water quality, and how it is considered a buffer and helps to keep water free of eutrophication and algal overgrowth.
    Also think I mentioned calcium carbonate and the shells of marine creatures and invertebrates.
    But if you have fleshed that out any one else's hypotheses, more power to you. But IMO, and I don't mean to be disrespectful, I think there have been some other contributors leading the formulation of this particular hypothesis. It more or less piggybacks on other discussions. If you have the wherewithall to put it all together, then you go! In the end it isn't so important who claims the discovery, as who will benefit from it. Humanity? Life on earth?


    Report comment

    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
      Ho Taters, did you have a theory or have you just now explained your earlier contribution to stocks theory of chitin? Do you recall obes theory of exoskeletons? Does obe remember?


      Report comment

      • HoTaters HoTaters
        I'm sure Obe remembers. He had a hypothesis re: the failure of exoskeletons to form due to radionuclides replacing minerals vital for their formation.
        Obe, do you want to speak up here?


        Report comment

    • Code brought up chitin in particular and then I pieced it together with everything that is massively hit. I am shocked this information has not "gone viral", but it would shame the $cientists that be.
      Indeed an "ah hah" moment that I thought would change the world within a month……good luck. Truth, knowledge, intuition is very disrespected.
      I have spoke with marine biologists and got the oft repeated, "but the radiation is very dilute."


      Report comment

      • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
        funny the biologists would refute the theory with the dilution theme when the theory is all about accumulation…re-concentration, of certain isotopes.
        Now if you said the theory was based on global warming, they would have listened. Its the only known cause of anything


        Report comment

      • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
        we were talking about the difference between k-40 background and anthropogenic radiation sources for many months and discussed the idea of a biological ion exchange resin analog to what is used to concentrate cesium by marine scientists, with HillBilly and Oldster and perhaps others chiming in with the idea. That was many months ago. I kept searching for biological substances that could act as ion exchange, precipitants and absorbents. The photos of all the orange crab shells got me to thinking of chitin. Chitin and pectin and algin have been used as radionuclide chelators. It turns out some of these biological substances have a high specificity for certain heavy metals. We were also wondering about cell membranes. One such post from November of last year
        http://enenews.com/worst-alarm-shocking-collapse-salmon-population-pacific-northwest-existent-pathetic-grim-disturbing-grave-danger-official-calls-immediate-government-action-majorly-wrong-happening-oceans-vide/comment-page-1#comment-723649


        Report comment

      • HoTaters HoTaters
        I see, stock, Code. You two IMO ARE onto something.


        Report comment

        • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
          central to the idea is that background radiation and anthropogenic sources should not be assumed to be the same. Finding biological functions that are specific to anthropogenic is one way to tease apart the differences. The significance of this line of thinking is that background radiation is very high compared to anthropogenic, and science is always making the comparison, suggesting that mans contribution is minor. Its a pivotal point. Practically speaking, one could adhere to the ECRR information and be done with it….almost…


          Report comment

          • AirSepTech AirSepTech
            To some degree, I see this no different than antimony, arsenic, many others. All manner of chemicals/compounds.
            You go along fine, maybe years, no problem. Background.
            Add a tiny bit more of the same or similar or ???
            BAM. And every individual is a bit different.
            The labrats need to get their heads out of the box, before they are in a box. :(

            • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
              AirSep, a threshold dose, or tipping point theory. Im not seeing it that way.
              Consider that the worldwide average effective dose rate from natural background is about 2400 microSv. Worldwide average dose from weapons fallout peaked at 113 microSv, about 5% of background in 1963. We have it that 60 million people died from that. With Fukushima, we may approach roughly the amount from weapons testing, and obviously fallout is still dwarfed by natural radiation.
              They like to say low level radiation is a stochastic risk…a random chance of being struck with cancer or not. But this is not true. Most of the damage comes from free radicals and this is the same as premature aging, and general ill health.
              The implication is that all life would have been suffering sub acute illness since life began. As long as we lump all radiation together, one is stuck with this conundrum. But if you admit they are different, then you can begin to question if background was less dangerous than assumed and fallout more dangerous than assumed.
              Busby et al give new dose coefficients that reflect the greater toxicity of anthropogenic sources. The toxicity of background is up for debate. Obviously, life did fine with all that radiation before 1945. The precautionary principle says natures undefiled standard is the baseline of balance and health. Only with caution would one reduce their intrinsic radiation, in hopes of improving on nature…

              • AirSepTech AirSepTech
                Yes, I will admit mine is a 'less than stellar' comparison. It got your attention, no?
                I wanted to thank you, others, in this 'non-standard' theory. Pushing against tribal knowledge is a most difficult task.
                My 'iron in the fire' is safety and security(including the 'health' aspect) regarding use of the product. This they fail miserably at, so easy fruit is always available.
                Add in economics, and they look like fools.
                "natures undefiled standard is the baseline of balance and health" Yes to that ;)
                Did I mention Argon? billions of tons out there.
                even more billions of tons of 40K
                even more billions/trillions of tons of potassium it is all locked up in.
                I think I already did.
                Something of interest to me. haha
                Another interest is genetics. Another giant fail for the nuke crew. Although they are very sharp folks, the ideas of 'spontaneous genetic change' with little pressure, makes for a lively debate.
                The idea that a small amount of their 'fairy dust' has little to no effect, explain 'little'.
                That was a great multiple post, to 'incredi' I believe, a day or 2 ago in the 4am time frame.
                Take care and Fight On.

              • HoTaters HoTaters
                Yes, Code. The distinction between natural background sources of radiation (and clearly defining that so that "nukists" can't constantly change the definition) vs. anthropogenic sources of radiation is central to the argument. And it is central to whatever hypothesis or hypotheses you, stock, or others here may pursue. That a new theory or theory could come from this is an exciting prospect.
                Don't know if this has ever been mentioned. Deduced it from your comment. Why is your point critical?
                Critical to consider because of how living organisms handle or metabolize, are affected by anthropogenic sources of radiation vs. what was encountered prior to the Nuclear Age. It appears to be safe to assume (or can has it been proven?) living organisms handled well what was encountered in an environment with natural background radiation.
                To validate this particular argument, what kind of stats are out there on cancers and the various illnesses, environmental damage to living organisms from "natural background" vs. background at man-made levels?
                The "outliers" for what happened prior to the Nuclear Age might be those events, like people or creatures being exposed to radiation from volcanoes, uranium or radium deposits they accidentally disturbed.
                Gets pretty complex, non? Wondering if anyone ever studied what things used to be like "in stasis." Or if there ever even was stasis.
                "The only constant being change."
                What a quandary.


                Report comment

      • AirSepTech AirSepTech
        "but the radiation is very dilute."
        More than a few have banged the drum, I guess more, louder, is needed.
        COMBINATION's
        You have found something that is an 'anomaly' in their book. IMO
        They will pushback at all cost.
        My line of business has been down this road many times, in all sorts of subjects, it always seems to be an epic battle.
        Fight On.


        Report comment

  • HoTaters HoTaters
    "Table 12
    Alkali metals and radionuclides (Na, K, Rb, Cs, 137Cs, and 40K) in several species of mushrooms (data on Na, K, Rb, and Cs are for caps of fruit bodies collected in ~1986 ~ 2006 and data on 137Cs and 40K are for whole fruiting bodies) …."
    Cesium 137 is another radionuclide apparently mimicking other minerals and displacing them, but I can't remember just now (w/o looking it up) what displaces what.
    Calcium, magnesium, and potassium are displaced by radionuclides. There are probably many other minerals vital to health which are displaced by radionuclides.
    How do the chemical properties of the radionuclides cause living creatures NOT to be able to form chitin, skeletons, exoskeltons properly? By what mechanism? Displacement, but what causes the failure of the organism's cells to miss identifying the toxin(s)?
    Haven't read your research yet, Stock. It would be great if you can figure that question out. Is your work based on the findings of Dr. Sternglass, in part? Just curious.
    stock, I think if you can find how the function of chitin is analagous to the formation of fibrin and fibrinogen (i.e., in response to a chemical, environmental toxin, trauma, radionuclide, or other "insult") in veins, arteries, and tissues in human bodies, you'll get the prize. See Kent Holtorff's video at his website. He has described in detail how fibrin forms in the body of human beings and leads to chronic illness, the collapse of the immune system, even death.


    Report comment

    • HoTaters HoTaters
      We know compromised immune systems in the animal kingdom (due to radiation exposure) can cause disease and death.
      I think you (perhaps with some contributions from others by way of throwing some ideas around) may be onto something big, as you said.
      Having studied a LOT of functional medicine and chronic disease discussions, and Dr. Holtorff's work, I strongly urge you to study his premises re: fibrin and fibrinogen. He founded some of the first clinics treating Gulf War Illness, Lyme disease, chronric fatigue syndrome (myalgic encephalitis), fibromyalgia. All involve collapse of the immune system, and all are related to a buildup of fibrin in the body, which eventually leads to catastrophic illness, immune collapse, and chronic, serious illnesses.
      Just a suggestion. I think if you grasp how fibrin is produced and why it is produced, you'll be able to describe the mechanism whereby chitin and structures high in calcium carbonate are prevented from being properly formed and maintained by the living creatures you describe in your research.
      If you decide you'd like me to help you with that one (the research), I'm game.

      • HoTaters HoTaters
        I can't even explain why I believe that is true, it's just something intuitive, and something I can conceptualize in my head, but cannot explain or verbalize.
        Maybe this, what are the organisms producing to protect themselves from the radionuclides? What inflammatory processes are taking place in their bodies? And is the end result of that process (whatever is analogous to fibrin, fibrinogen production) the failure to recognize toxins replacing needed minerals? There's enough evidence out there pointing to immune function collapse in "higher" life forms that some of our understanding of that could be applied to creatures lower on the food chain, and those with chitin and calcium carbonate carrying structures in their bodies.
        In my humble opinion, and FWIW. But I'm no chemist, and not a microbiology expert.

    • HoTaters HoTaters
      Hmmn, above, Rb is rubidium. Primarily a stable element, with a small, slightly radioactive component.
      Rubidium is not known to be necessary for any living organisms. However, rubidium ions are handled by living organisms in a manner similar to potassium ions, being actively taken up by plants and by animal cells due to their identical charge. OK, I'm going to be a bit lazy here:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubidium
      "Characteristics
      Rubidium is a very soft, ductile, silvery-white metal.[5] It is the second most electropositive of the non-radioactive alkali metals and melts at a temperature of 39.3 °C (102.7 °F). Similar to other alkali metals, rubidium metal reacts violently with water, forms amalgams with mercury and alloys with gold, iron, caesium, sodium, and potassium, but not lithium (even though rubidium and lithium are in the same group). As with potassium (which is slightly less reactive) and caesium (which is slightly more reactive), rubidium's reaction with water is usually vigorous enough to ignite the hydrogen gas it liberates. Rubidium has also been reported to ignite spontaneously in air. Rubidium has a very low ionization energy of only 406 kJ/mol. Rubidium and potassium show a very similar purple color in the flame test, which makes spectroscopy methods necessary to distinguish the two elements."

    • HoTaters, my theory is pretty easy read…less than 15 minutes
      My theory is primarily based on destruction of already formed chitin via radiation blasting after bio-magnification.
      This hypothesis is strongly supported by the fact that EVERYTHING that is getting hard hit in the animal world uses chitin directly or rely on other lifeforms that use chitin directly.
      That said, chitin structures are very complex geometries and widely ranging in formation. Thus chemical and radiation attack during formation could have substantive impact.

This List Compiled by Kelly Ann Thomas
61 pages describing news aggregation on the death of the largest ocean on earth
Picture of poor little seal, crawling the streets of a city, with pneumonia, because there is no food in the ocean.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2015/09/61-pages-of-stories-of-death-of-pacific.html

  • Hi Stock,
    I emailed you an updated list, up to this article.
    Thanks for all you do.

  • HoTaters HoTaters
    RE: the seal pup, "Rubbish" (picture at link above, from Kelly Ann Thomas' compilation…. I have to put that name in quotes, it sounds so utterly disrespectful. Rubbish, ha, ha. I hope he was named Rubbish because that's how he was treated.
    But no, he was probably thought to have been eating garbage, or worse, trying to eat rocks somewhere. Stupid seal. But it makes great publicity, doesn't it?
    No food, I'm starving, can't you see? Can't you see how my skin is hanging off of my tiny, malnourished body?
    That has to be one of the saddest pictures ever.
    And one of the most accusatory looks ever.
    "What have you done to my world? You have killed us. My family is gone. I'm starving, and you're just taking pictures of me for your latest news article … And you named me, 'Rubbish.' What kind of a name is that?' "

    • HoTaters HoTaters
      That's how he was treated (like "Rubbish") before he went to the Marine Mammal Rescue Center, that is. I have the utmost respect for people in those centers.

    • Sickputer
      Kind of makes you wonder if the "seal rescues" are just palliative care for terminally ill creatures dying of starvation. If you're just feeding animals for a while and then releasing them back into a foodless environment, what did you achieve? A 90-day zoo? Time's up little seal… Time to go home and die now. ;-(
      In a Soylent Green society the rescuers would use 90% of the dying creatures to feed the remaining 10%. Where there is no hope…there are no scruples.

2 comments:

  1. Stock, are you able to reformat the posts you have above for the role of chitin and the hypothesis? Some of the posts in the threads ended up being just a few characters long. Pretty difficult to read. Just FYI and feedback. Not sure what web page program you're using.

    I'm really wondering what the role of radionuclides is, in relation to possibly replacing healthy calcium, normal uptake when chitin is formed. Can't remember which radionuclide the body recognizes as Calcium off the top of my head right now (too much information runnin' round my brain as the old Police song goes...).

    Where my mind is going with this, and perhaps it's an area of research separate from your chitin hypothesis are these things;
    1.) is chitin being formed normally due to uptake of radionuclide(s) mimicking Calcium in living chitin building tissues; and
    2.) Is a normal range of Calcium Carbonate available in waters as a healthy buffer for aquatic organisms?

    More to you on this ....

    Cheers and a sante, HT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HT, google "chemical structure of chitin" and you will find there is no Calcium in chitin. One reason chitin is so interesting is that it is "structure" whilst being 100% biological, not a shell of calcium per se, yet functions as a "shell" sometimes, sometimes as very complex biological structures that can see, or even detect extreme electromagnetic waves, or be wings.

      Its really cool, and very important, and its a radiation sponge and radiation blows it up. And to your point, initial bioaccumulation could very well cause growing chitin to not form properly.

      Delete

Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments