Another fish kill outside Tokyo — I’ve never seen such a thing before says local farmer (PHOTO)

Published: June 15th, 2012 at 6:36 pm ET


June 15, 2012 report on translated by Fukushima Diary:



10 thousand sardines were found dead on the beach in Minami shitaura machi Miura city Kanagawa


From the result of simple water quality testing, nothing abnormal was found. Prefectural government is going to investigate more.

Staff talks there is a possibility that the sardines were chased after large predators from offshore, but a farmer near this area talks he hasn’t seen such a thing before.

Published: June 15th, 2012 at 6:36 pm ET


Related Posts

  1. Massive fish kill outside Tokyo in Chiba — “The sight is somewhat apocalyptic” — “Almost looks like a carpet of sardines” (PHOTOS) June 6, 2012
  2. NBC: Ocean stained with blood at Japanese port city — Gizmodo: “The scariest thing is that no one is sure why this is happening”; 200 tons of dead sardines (PHOTOS) June 8, 2012
  3. Photo: 400+ microsieverts per hour at elementary school 60 kilometers from Fukushima Daiichi September 12, 2012
  4. Photo: Over 100 cattle have died at farm since 3/11 — Farmer says it’s from Fukushima Syndrome October 11, 2012
  5. Mistake? Local Gov’t: 330 Million bq/km² of radioactivity found yesterday 50 mi. from Tokyo — Had been ‘not detected’ for weeks — Now at March levels (CHART) September 22, 2011

22 comments to Another fish kill outside Tokyo — I’ve never seen such a thing before says local farmer (PHOTO)

  • arclight arclight

    oops !! not good news for africa then…

    Turning sardines into superheroes. I'm Bob Hirshon and this is Science Update.

    "Off the coast of southwest Africa, toxic gas is bubbling up from the ocean floor, killing marine life across areas as large as New Jersey, and even worsening the greenhouse effect. What could stop this menace? Why, the lowly sardine.

    Andrew Bakun is a professor of marine biology and fisheries at the University of Miami. He says the toxic gas comes from decaying microscopic plankton—microscopic plants that sardines normally eat.


    They have very fine filters in their gill rakers, and they can actually filter these microscopic phytoplankton directly out of the water, and actually consume them directly.

    With the local sardine population decimated by overfishing, Dr. Bakun says a rebound might stave off the toxic eruptions. And protecting other sardine populations could stop this from becoming a global problem. I'm Bob Hirshon for AAAS, the Science Society……."

    more here

  • arclight arclight

    [Updated at 12:15 p.m.: Redondo Beach officials said initial assessments suggest oxygen depletion in the King Harbor basins caused the massive fish die-off.

    City Manager Bill Workman said city officials with the help of marine experts would help determine if there was any environmental issue involved. Tests are now being performed on the water as officials begin removing the dead fish, which city officials estimated to be in the millions.

  • arclight arclight

    Perez added that “what we are doing now is to ensure that fish kill will no longer devastate the industry”, but warned that the industry has not fully recovered from the fish kill that occurred in May last year.

    Perez said the sardine catch will hopefully quadruple, estimating that for every ton of fish left to spawn, the harvest after three months increases more than three times.

    A fishing ban was imposed last December in waters off the East Sulu Sea, Basilan Strait and Sibuguey Bay near Zamboanga del Norte to allow sardines to spawn.

    An average of 454 vessels normally fish for sardines off the Zamboanga Peninsula.

    Perez said that since fishing was allowed again in the Pacific in late March, the tuna harvest has been rising.

    Earlier, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) has lifted the fishing ban on big eye and yellowfin tuna fishing ban on pockets 1 and 2 of the Pacific Ocean for 36 Philippine

    nice to see the world working together on the sardine problem??

    🙁 /sarc

  • arclight arclight

    "…At least 85 tons of fish will be removed and will be sent to a composting center where they will be buried until they are reincarnated as compost in 90 – 120 days. The waste hauling company is considering sell the fish-based fertilizer to farms. Some local fishermen are doing their own recycling of the dead sardines by freezing the fish and later using them as bait…."

    just some food for thought there

  • jec jec

    Note rhe comment on TOXIC gas bubbling up from the seafloor..and two days ago Osaka Bay changed colors. Do you think its related;that an earthquake or earth event caused the fish kill?

  • AGreenRoad AGreenRoad

    Could be radiation, could be….

    Acid Test; The Global Challenge Of Ocean Acidification; via A Green Road Blog

    Acid Oceans; Why Should We Care? via A Green Road Blog

    • BreadAndButter BreadAndButter

      Yes. Most likely imho.

      • arclight arclight

        hi bnb

        its a tough call, especially now that science is expected to lie or fudge the data to protect the yen again..

        we shouldnt rule out toxicity of heavy metals and i found this interesting bit on camium to gice an example on effects on fish

        "The trout exposed to 3.4 Ug/1 did not show any hyperactive behavior before spawning, but suddenly became extremely hyperractive when females began their probing activity I "lapsed in
        paralysis and died within a few minutes ".

        on a personal note.. this is putting me of the idea of any further courtship! the levels of metals in the waters are quite to have various effects on various fish… the sardines would suffer if they hit a stream of polluted water of krill etc..

        ""lapsed in
        paralysis and died within a few minutes "

        to all males at enenews best to AVOID PROBING ACTIVITIES! till the answer is questioned?? 😉 lol!

        rememeber you heard it first on enenews!

  • hbjon hbjon

    I hear people say that the ocean is so vast that any man-made pollution could not concentrate to toxic levels. However, the substances that have been washed into the Pacific Ocean are not natural. Most of it has been radiated in a nuclear reactor. This action makes different substances that have been sanctioned with energies and forces that were unknown to animal life over 100 years ago. These energies remain imbedded within atoms for a very long time.

    • girlygrrll

      If that were true, then pregnant women would not have to worry about the high levels of mercury in most fish…

  • datura17

    has anyone suggested that maybe, just maybe, this is a prelude to a volcanic eruption somewhere? and what will happen to the reactors and spf4? or is that the main reason for the cover over he spf4, to keep the ash out? how will they balance the ph if it gets in and what about the abrasiveness of the ash, should an eruption occur. o this is getting good. just keep smiling.

  • Just saw this…a monster asteroid snook up on earth, and was only discovered a few days ago and passing by Friday

    • Jon_NY Jon_NY

      It's only a matter of time till one hits. Luckily we have only been here for a blink of an eye. We will be gone before another blink.

  • rockster

    If the PLANKTON are dying off, that could be the biggest issue for the planet, as Pacific plankton produce a huge % of Oxygen. So if the plankton are F'd up after a few generations because of radioactivity, then we will all be F'd up in 5-10 years with oxygen depletion.

    Whale deaths would also be going up if this happens, as well as ever other fish in the pacific soon enough.

    Still only being reported about sardines, wonder what else is dying.

    • arclight arclight

      hi rockster
      heres some good science from china

      The effects of crude oil and Corexit 9527 on marine phytoplankton in an experimental enclosure

      "..In the enclosure with oil and dispersant, diatom growth was suppressed and the phytoplankton were dominated by microflagellates such as haptophytes, chrysophytes and a prasinophyte. The diatoms appeared healthy under the microscope and the total number of species was similar species that was affected by the oil. Pennate diatoms, amoebae, zooflagellattes (e.g. bodonids) were more abundant than in the control enclosure. The phytoplankton saccessions in the enclosure receiving only dispersant and in the control enclosure were very similar, but markedly dijferentm from that in the oil-plus-dispersant enclosure. A diatom bloom commenced in both the control and the enclosure receiving only dispersant by day 2 and collapsed by day 11 due to nutrient exhaustion (nitrate and silicate). Nitrate it was not exhausted in the enclosure containing oil and dispersant until the end of the experiment (day 17) and consequently primary productivity and nitrogen transport rates increased with time. This observation is in contrast with the control and dispersant only enclosures were primary productivity and nitrogen transport rates declined dramatically in the middle of the experiment due to the exhaustion of nitrate and silicate…."

      • arclight arclight

        the chinese test was done in the early nineties

        this report from the NY times is from

        april 2011

        mpact of Gulf Spill’s Underwater Dispersants Is Examined

        While words like “associated with” or “linked to” may sound weak and unconvincing, the syntax highlights just how little is actually known about these chemicals. For 13 of the dispersant ingredients, no relevant data could be found.

        “BP had a particular set of dispersants on hand and no one at the time seemed to know if they were safe, whether they were safer than other dispersants products that could be used or even whether they were safer for people and the environment than oil alone,” said Marianne Engelman Lado, a lawyer with Earthjustice. “BP chose Corexit because it was the dispersant on hand, not because it was the safest. However, regulation of dispersants is so inadequate that BP didn’t have enough information to figure out how it compared with other dispersants or oil alone.”.."

  • What effect might a large typhoon have on ocean radiation, fish, and people? I expect this will have a very large negative effect:

    Major Typhoon Headed for Japan

    [Published on Jun 16, 2012 by DavidBylsma
    Could this be a radiation nightmare?]