BBC: Public health hazard from fish arriving in California waters? May be considerably more contaminated than radioactive tunas (VIDEO)

Published: May 29th, 2012 at 8:21 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
27 comments


BBC News – Bluefin tuna record Fukushima radioactivity

[...]

Nicholas Fisher, a professor of marine sciences at Stony Brook University in New York says he was ‘stunned’ to find the radioactive signal in bluefin tuna.

h/t Anonymous tip

Transcript Excerpt at 4:20 in

Fisher: The fish that will be arriving around now, and in the coming months, to California waters may be carrying considerably more radioactivity and if so they may possibly be a public health hazard.

Watch the video here

Published: May 29th, 2012 at 8:21 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
27 comments

Related Posts

  1. Full California Tuna Study Now Online: Possibility of radioactive contamination raises public health concerns — Spent less than a month in waters near Japan — Turtles, sharks, birds also at risk? May 30, 2012
  2. Scientists: “Absolutely every one” of bluefin tunas tested from S. California was contaminated with Fukushima radiation — “We were definitely surprised to see it at all – and even more surprised to see it in every one we measured” May 28, 2012
  3. Forbes: Radiation in California bluefin tuna may be a blessing — Lead Scientist: My first thought was this will do more for conservation of this animal than nearly anything else could May 31, 2012
  4. Fox News: Fukushima contamination is hitting California — “Humans are terrified” of eating it — “It’s an open question” about the risks — “You’re not scared? To me, if someone tells me there’s low levels of radioactivity in that fish…” (VIDEO) January 17, 2014
  5. Professor: California bluefin tuna may have been contaminated by radioactive substances from Fukushima that traveled across Pacific, rather than contamination off coast of Japan — We don’t know exactly what is happening (VIDEO) October 10, 2013

27 comments to BBC: Public health hazard from fish arriving in California waters? May be considerably more contaminated than radioactive tunas (VIDEO)

  • You mean the stuff we keep dumping and leaking into the ocean goes in the fish? … uhhhh…durrr….duhhh…. oh well, lets go shopping at the mall.
    What? Plutonium can vaporize just like every element? Duhhh…durrr…uhhhh.. hey Jersey Shore is on!
    Rome is burning? Duhhh…durrr….uhhh… Give me my fiddle, cause Nero and I are gonna fiddle while she burns.


    Report comment

    • AGreenRoad AGreenRoad

      Tweedle dum and tweedle dee.. repeat after me… keep repeating…

      Ignore the man behind the curtain asking for more money to fix the mess he created… Just give him more of your money. There is never enough… just ask him.

      And don't you dare cut off the corporate welfare or ask these companies to shoulder the risk that they are tranferring to the poorest people in the world, while keeping the profits and paying no taxes..

      They like that win win win for them and lose lose lose for us stuff.


      Report comment

  • ….may possibly be? For those still eating sushi …

    Low/High Internal/External Effects of Man-Made Radiation
    http://realitycheck.no-ip.info/forum/index.php?topic=152.0

    Jet streams, debris and around the world rad monitoring links
    http://realitycheck.no-ip.info/forum/index.php?topic=20.0


    Report comment

  • And another thing: being "stunned" that we are finding cesium in fish when we KNOW we put it in the ocean reminds of a great line from the classic film "Casablanca".
    The corrupt and evil Vichy/Nazi Captain Renault, immediately after winning money gambling there, shuts down the nightclub saying "I am shocked — shocked — that there is gambling in this establishment."


    Report comment

  • Gotham

    The EPA safe limit per liter for drinking water is 6 picocuries or 0.222 Bq.

    A liter of water weighs one kg.

    So, my question is how come it is safe to eat tuna contaminated with 6 Bq/kg?

    I guess the answer is that one does not eat tuna in the amount one would drink of water. But that assumption is only valid if the food supply is not all contaminated to a 6 Bq/Kg level like it most certainly is in Japan. So, how does Japan justify using a safe level for food of 500 or 1000 Bq/Kg?


    Report comment

    • The EPA regulates drinking water.

      The FDA regulates seafood (if you can call what they do regulation).

      The EPA uses a "precautionary" model. The FDA uses a cost-benefit analysis model.

      The U.S. FDA specific Derived Intervention Levels are here: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/UCM251056.pdf

      The specific “FDA derived intervention level or criterion for each radionuclide group” are as follows “for all components of the diet” for Strontium 90, Iodine 131 and Plutonium 238 and 239
      Sr-90 160 Bq/kg
      I-131 170 Bq/kg
      Cs-134 + 137 1200 Bq/kg
      Pu-238 + Pus 239 + Am 241 is 2 Bq/kg

      MAJIA: These levels are not safe if you consider that the standards presuppose that the radioactive item is the only radioactive item you are ingesting.

      http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/radioactive-tuna-not-safe-even-at-low.html


      Report comment

      • cossack55

        I would argue that the FDA does, in fact, regulate. That is, they regulate the amount of kickback money from the likes of Monsanto, ADM, Cargyle etc.


        Report comment

      • dharmasyd dharmasyd

        Majia…I can't thank you enough for your unending work and effort, your good scholarship, your energy and dedcation. I admire you, and I am grateful beyond words.


        Report comment

      • pacific

        Yes, thank you Majia. It's great to see it clearly stated, the distinction between the EPA's and FDA's approaches to weighing risk 'for' us. And it's just really striking to see that the end result of the FDA's figgerin's (er, risk modeling) is that Plutonium, which is evil, evil stuff inside the human body, ends up being hunky dorey, with them for us to eat, if we only get a little. 2 Bq/kilo, that is. That's 2 radiation 'zaps' per second, hitting a tiny area of tissue right next to wherever the Plutonium lodges, very easy to come up with a cancer that way. Especially if any Plutonium volatilized while you were cooking the food, and you inhaled that thar becquerel or two. Zap-zap, every second til it's all broken down, and Plutonium-239 has a 24,000 year half life.

        And, if any Enenewsers read this, do I have this right? I think that loooong half-life means that a 2Bq-size bit of Pu-239 will be relatively large. With that long a half life, you're only going to get a zap (distintegration) about once every 24,000 years from each 2 atoms of Pu-239 (then it would be halfway broken down, with just 1 atom of Pu-239 left).

        BUT, there you are, getting zapped twice a second, 2Bq, from the tiny hunk o Pu-239 you ingested in your FDA-approved snack. Wouldn't your tiny hunk, while very small, nonetheless have to be big enough to contain enough atoms of Pu-239 to keep zapping away twice a second for 24,000 years and only be halfway done?

        Argh.


        Report comment

      • Radio VicFromOregon

        Majia, thanks for this clarification between these two agencies and the stats.


        Report comment

    • HoTaters HoTaters

      Hi Gotham. Picocuries not equal to Bq, and liquid and solid measurements are different.

      Someone here posted great links on the conversion factors.

      There is also a really great document explaining the effects of internal emitters. I'll see if I can find it and post a link for you. It has a good explanation of the different types of radionuclides, their effects on the body, and what internal emitters do.

      If I can find a link to the Converter program you can have on your desktop (converts all kinds of units to get equivalencies) I'll post that too. It's helpful.


      Report comment

    • HoTaters HoTaters

      Hi again Gotham. Here's a good explanation of the effects of different types of radiation on the body. 'Doesn't address the conversion factor (that's in another article I need to dig up for you!) However, it's a really good starting point.

      'Wish I could remember where I saw the conversion info. Maybe on the forums?

      There is a lot of debate on what levels of exposure are safe/unsafe. The general consensus among scientists (National Academy of Sciences, I believe supports this position) is the Linear No-Dose Threshold Model. The LNDTM (my acronym) says no exposure to internal emitters is safe. Radiation exposure is unsafe, period. (This in reference to natural sources like sunligt, just man-made ones).

      Yes, the conversion factors are a bit tricky. Just remember the liquid (liters) and solid (kg) measurements will use different standards. One practically has to become an expert to understand all of this! If you do a browser search, you can find good info. on the conversion factors.


      Report comment

  • andii

    "large volumes of contaminated water –> went <– from the fukushima reactors into the Fukushima sea."

    ahem, talk about sublimminal programming.
    Of course, people won't even think that tons of radioactive water has been dumped for the past 15 months. *eye rolls*

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18245868


    Report comment

  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture

    The nuclear industry ruined our ocean. And air. So, now what?


    Report comment

  • Note: ..to be clear.
    The studies were done in August of 2011. NINE months ago.

    1. WHY are we just now getting this information?
    2. WHERE are the more current reports?

    This should be considered also:

    I would say it is prudent to assume that more than one fish that was not tested may have been highly contaminated and may get caught and consumed by an unsuspecting human or later processed and applied as fertilizer to someone's garden. hmmm…?

    1. WHY does the news report not consider this for the safety of all?
    2. WHY should we have to figure this out for ourselves?
    (although it's not that difficult to figure)

    It does not really disperse. It spreads and accumulates and continues to be hazardous to life until it's 'decay rate' x 10 is complete. (In the case of cesium-137 that's 300 years) They never say that either.


    Report comment

  • AGreenRoad AGreenRoad

    The scientist says he found 97 times or percent? more radioactive Potassium 40 than the other isotope not identified but at 10Bq/kg level in these same fish, but that this radiation found was all 'natural'.

    Any comments?


    Report comment

    • dharmasyd dharmasyd

      AGR…Comments, yes. 1) Thank you and Majia for your diligence and for posting so much information.

      I think we all must become well educated in these areas of nuclear physics because the 'credentialed ones'. for the most part, do not and will not give us accurate information.

      So thanks for filling in the holes in their_____ (fill in the blank).


      Report comment

  • nukedincali nukedincali

    Why do all the governments of the world promote nuclear experimentation and prohibit hemp and marijuana? Are they human? Anyone who supports nuclear is either payed or brainwashed.
    http://wideshut.co.uk/tetraphobia-and-fukushima/


    Report comment

  • Simply a lot of money to be made in the nuclear industry and a lot of money to be made in the illegal drug industry. What they don't want. A bunch of stoned hippies growing their own food and drugs with a big old solar panel on top of the school bus which is running on bio diesel. What they want is you on the hamster wheel of slave jobs, relying on big agra and big pharma for everything. And big oil for transportation and big nuclear for your electricity. And mainstream media for all entertainment and news. They like robbing us of our time.


    Report comment

  • stopnp stopnp

    Duh. ….and all government is against it's producing populace. It's disgusting.


    Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.