Crap article. Not a shred of actual information.
There is always a reason for 3000 animals to die at once. It should show up in a toxicology analysis. To just say "this shit happens" is the worst kind of journalism.
Even when you die of "old age" something
was the cause of death. Typically that something is organ failure as a result of malnutrition.
Malnutrition you say? This isn't friggin' Africa, I live in the West! Yet it's true. When you get old your body stops absorbing vitamins and minerals. You then see the effects in events like burst arteries (copper deficiency).
My point is science is well equipped to determine cause of death and when a mass death happens it should be investigated, not shrugged off, because cause of death is not as hard to determine as that article implies. My theory is simply that it WAS investigated, the cause was determined to be pollution, the culprit was determined to be a large corporation with extensive lobbying power, and the issue was swept under the rug.
It wouldn't be the first time. The US has a history of unreported nuclear accidents (accidental release from nuclear facilities) and environmental accidents from other sources like coal plants. The problem is the government has over over time increased the volume of deadly emmissions required before something is deemed worthy of a large-scale response.
Historical Overview of Radiation Protection Guidelines: 1961 - 1980
, emphasis added:
* This protection action guideline, which dates from 1961, represents the earliest and most conservative preventive action range of suggested evaluations and controls and pertains to the contamination of the environment beginning with low levels of anthropogenic radionuclides. In this guideline, a daily intake of 100 pCi/day of 131I represents a degree of contamination requiring actions which exceed quantitative surveillance and routine control (restrict pasture, avoid surface water supplies, wash or peel vegetables, store or reprocess milk) and encompass a level of contamination at which the "additional control" of isolating contaminated food would normally be taken.
* These protective action guidelines, often cited in FDA literature prior to 1980, have been superseded by the more liberal protective action guidelines issued by the FDA in 1982 and printed in the Federal Register. The EPA publication issued in 1992 and cited below reaffirms the 1982 FDA guidelines which were issued as a component of the radiological emergency response plans sponsored by FEMA. In these publications, no mention is made of the specific guidelines of the earlier FRC and their much more restrictive intake rate ranges.
in other words, as explained in the same document:
Earlier guidelines were concerned with contamination of the environment beginning with a "level of concern" which was much lower than those now described as emergency actions in the more recent revised FDA/FEMA protective action guidelines (PAGs). A third set of guidelines specifically titled "levels of concern" was issued by the FDA just after Chernobyl in anticipation of the spread of radioactive contamination from this accident. The fourth set of guidelines is contained within the Radiological Emergency Response Plans sponsored by FEMA, the circulation of which is restricted to authorized persons.
So in short. First the guidelines on dealing with nuclear accidents required an emergency response to accidents. Then they redefined what constitutes an "emergency" to tolerate more dangerous events. Then they decided the public didn't need to know. In addition it is not illegal to sell food contaminated by radiation provided the radiation falls below a level that has increased over time and is now secret.
The death of these birds and fish no doubt constitutes a "public doesn't need to know" type event.
It's probably worth mentioning at this point that there are 2 nuclear reactors and a "Chemical Agent Waste Facility" (for the storage of ex-munitions like mustard gas) within a 60 mile radius of where the event occurred.