I was just at one of those beaches. Dead muscles dominate the landscape by the million. One can only imagine the impact this is having on the intertidal sea life and the land life that depend upon it, such as birds.
Events like this happen and yet no on wants to adopt nuclear energy. Instead the narrative is natural gas supplemented by wind, solar, and batteries all of which cause more environmental destruction. Even in catastrophic nuclear failures, nature inevitably reclaims the land. On the other hand Solar panels and wind farms decimate local wildlife populations and require large amounts of land use - not to mention the mining operations.
I wish people would remember the wonderful effects that lockdown had on the environment. Clearer air in places all around the world. Our daily activities as individuals have an impact on the environment, but only when we act in unison.
The Washington Post is a propaganda outlet, and this is fear propaganda. This type of organization has learned a wonderful trick, and they use it all the time: they report current events <i>without checking for precedent</i>. Why? Because there almost always <i>is</i> precedent, which makes the current event seem <i>less alarming</i>, which is obviously no good for them.<p>This story is supposed to be due to global warming / climate change, right? If so, why is it easy to find reports of the same kind of thing happening over a hundred years ago, before humans had emitted any appreciable amount of CO2?<p>Here's one from 1912: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1912/02/12/archives/hot-ocean-boils-fish-gulf-sailors-report-passing-through-zone-of.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/1912/02/12/archives/hot-ocean-boils-...</a>
"HOT OCEAN BOILS FISH.; Gulf Sailors Report Passing Through Zone of Scalding Water." Inconvenient for the CO2 hypothesis, huh.<p>Please. Start checking for precedent when you see stories like this. I think you'll find it eye-opening.