California Nuclear Professor: Radioactive tuna may raise cancer risks (VIDEO)

Published: June 1st, 2012 at 3:55 pm ET


Radioactive tuna may raise cancer risks: nuclear professor
Sophia Soo
May 30, 2012

Radioactive tuna may raise cancer risks: nuclear professor

A nuclear lecturer says the low levels of radioactivity found in tuna caught near San Diego can produce a small increase in cancer risks.

Daniel Hirsch, lecturer on nuclear policy at the University of California, is concerned about the radioactive tuna caught in August last year that reportedly swam from Japan.


Unlike some other compounds, radioactive cesium does not quickly sink to the sea bottom but remains dispersed in the water. Fishes can swim right through it, ingesting it through their gills.

Published: June 1st, 2012 at 3:55 pm ET


Related Posts

  1. 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
  2. Top Cancer Doctor: Irresponsible to say cesium in California bluefin tuna is nothing to worry about — You have radioactive material in fish, which is being eaten by people (VIDEO) May 29, 2012
  3. Professor: Fukushima scaring ‘bejesus’ out of everybody in world… still flowing in ocean, radiation levels unknown — Clearly detectable in tuna at California coast… We focus a lot on bio-accumulation — Japan: Reactor leaks “may have gathered as a lump and drifted offshore, we need to continue monitoring it” (VIDEO) July 21, 2014
  4. HuffPost: Alarming that bluefin tuna near California still have Fukushima contamination — Study shows plant ‘most likely’ continues to leak February 22, 2013
  5. Nuclear Expert: World’s food chain being compromised by radioactive substances from Fukushima Daiichi? Levels “unexpectedly high” in California bluefin tuna (AUDIO) July 15, 2012

41 comments to California Nuclear Professor: Radioactive tuna may raise cancer risks (VIDEO)

  • Max1 Max1

    … Because 900,000 Pbq of radioactive pollution released into the environment is always considered a small increase?

  • What do tuna eat? I forget. Isn't radiation bio-accumulative? Best to no longer eat any fish. Rad monitoring, exposure and protection information links,24.0.html

    World-wide Fukushima fallout forecasts and nuke updates in vids

    …if you have the notion, fearless leaders await the rad word

    • gottagetoffthegrid

      tuna are top-of-the-food-chain preditory fish. only sharks and orca eat them.

      Cs is bio accumulative because it has a relatively long biological half-life — 70 days in humans IIRC.

      • Arizonan Arizonan

        One ought to exercise caution w/ interpretation of biological half lives. Often the nuke industry gives figures for soluble radioisotopes because insoluble ones last decades longer in tbe body esp if crosses into bloodstream. They will happily say uranium is excreted in urine in 24 hrs but forget to mention tbat if heated at high temps as in a fire or explosion it can stay in body 20 years, obviously a much different dose calculation.

  • Max1 Max1

    World cancer cases to rise by 75 percent by 2030

    Worldwide cases of cancer are likely to rise by nearly 75 percent by 2030, driven by demographic and lifestyle factors, according to a study published on Friday in the journal The Lancet Oncology.

    A team led by Freddie Bray of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France, said that in 2008 there were 12.7 million new cases of cancer, which would rise to 22.2 million by 2030, with 90 percent of the rise occurring in the poorest countries.

    In many countries, falls in cancers linked to infection have been offset by cancers of the colon, rectum, breast and prostate which are associated with a “westernised” diet, they said.

    The study used data from GLOBOCAN, an IARC database of cancer cases in 184 countries.

    • What-About-The-Kids

      To clarify, I think perhaps they mean a "Westernized diet of steady radiation contamination"…

      Sadly, we Western nations were the ones to help with the nuclear power plant proliferation right here in our own nations and beyond…

    • Time Is Short Time Is Short

      There's two ways to look at that report.

      First, it may be the first detailed look at the medical establishment's estimates of what Fuku radiation rates are going to look like, under cover of a standard medical report.

      Or, second, they didn't add any estimated Fukushima radiation fatalities (since it isn't treatable). So, in sum total to this scenario, with a 75% rise in standard cancers, add in the Fuku cancers, and WE'RE FU$%ED!

      Either way, (please see above).

  • Max1 Max1

    I repeat:

    When the kelp on the West Coast showed iodine and caesium…
    … The scientists should have known about bioaccumulation.

    "Shocked I tell you. To see gambling going on in this establishment."
    … It's either that or the scientists are slackers.

    • Time Is Short Time Is Short

      The scientists are slaves to the folks that determine the grant money. This includes school endowment funders.

      Guess who's really in charge. Not the scientists.

  • Max1 Max1


    "Unlike some other compounds, radioactive cesium does not quickly sink to the sea bottom but remains dispersed in the water. Fishes can swim right through it, ingesting it through their gills."

    Some truth for a change. 🙂

    • WindorSolarPlease

      Always like to hear the truth Max1..Thank you

      • WindorSolarPlease

        I clicked submit to soon Brain and Fingers can't keep up..Correction: Thank you for pointing out what was said

  • fuckyoushima

    cesium has a dangerous lifetime at least as long as one entire generation or human lifespan

    potassium loading and regular water losses through sweating may be viable.

    Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2011 Aug;61(2):344-57. Epub 2010 Nov 6.
    Blood, urine, and sweat (BUS) study: monitoring and elimination of bioaccumulated toxic elements.
    Genuis SJ, Birkholz D, Rodushkin I, Beesoon S.

    Many toxic elements appeared to be preferentially excreted through sweat. Presumably stored in tissues, some toxic elements readily identified in the perspiration of some participants were not found in their serum. Induced sweating appears to be a potential method for elimination of many toxic elements from the human body.

    (hepa. reverse osmosis. polimaster.)

  • Sharp2197 Sharp2197

    someone tell the professor that the plural for fish is fish not fishes.

  • Anthony Anthony

    Democrat worried about tainted seafood from Japan's nuclear meltdown
    By Elise Viebeck – 06/01/12 05:17 PM ET
    Rep. Edward Markey noted in letters to two agencies that bluefin tuna caught near San Diego were tainted with radiation.

    A House Democrat is asking federal regulators what they plan to do about Pacific seafood tainted with radiation from last year's meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan.

    • nohobear nohobear

      "…what they plan to do about Pacific seafood tainted with radiation from last year's meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan."

      How about a fish fry at Madame Hillary's place? Seeing how she was instrumental in allowing unrestricted imports of Japanese foodstuffs and no testing for contamination.

      I wish I had the investigative skills to go undercover and interview the household cooks for the elite politicos and capitalist billionaires. Something tells me when fish is served at State dinners, it's not coming from the Pacific. You know they know exactly how much Fukushima has spewed, and have kept silent. But for you and me, go ahead, enjoy your tuna and mayo. There's a few more bucks to be made off of us in oncology treatments.

      By the way, I mentioned this six months ago, but it is even more timely now with the disclosure of the radioactive bluefin. If you have beloved pets, I would avoid the seafood varieties. There's no way to know for sure the source of the fish. Gulf (corexit) or Pacific (radioactive) contamination is not worth the risk. In this current insane climate of greed, even if seafood were thoroughly inspected (increasingly unlikely)and found to be unfit for human consumption, you know it would find it's way into pet food chain. After all, there's still a buck to be made.

  • WindorSolarPlease

    Quote: Radioactive tuna may raise cancer risks.

    MAY? Why put the word "may" in that sentence?

    Any increase in radiation exposure is accompanied by an increased risk.

  • CB CB

    A House Democrat is asking federal regulators what they plan to do about Pacific seafood tainted with radiation from last year's meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan.

    • WindorSolarPlease

      Thank you Anthony and CB for the link.

      They all have the decision to be a so called corp team player or "For the People and Country Team Player"

      Keep strong and raising questions Rep. Edward Markey. Maybe there will be more who will take the lead with you.

      ~End Nuclear Power~

  • DannieJ DannieJ

    This just in: "Carcinogenics may be carcinogenic!"

  • abc-123-xyz

    Ok. I went tuna fishing in San Diego last year. I caught 4 blue fin tuna. Still have some in my freezer! What should I do with it? I dont want to dispose of hazardous nuclear waste improperly. Any one to test it for radiation? Is it hazardous? Well I guess I won't be fishing for a while. Where was fish and game on this? No public service announcements? To many questions ? Thanks enenews…the only place for any info on Fukushima. What is the price of Toro today?

    • BreadAndButter BreadAndButter

      You caught it from the ocean, you killed it, now eat it.

    • Bobby1

      You shouldn't worry about throwing it in the garbage. The ordinary household garbage material has been radioactive for some time anyway, what's a little more.

    • WindorSolarPlease

      Hi abc-123-xyz

      I would think it depends, on when you caught it after the disaster…the area you caught it in…If you were lucky enough to have caught a non-radiation tuna.
      How lucky do you feel? I personal, would throw it out.

      I would imagine in this disaster, the Sea Food would be the first hardest hit, and the most dangerous to eat. Most likely our new crops will also continue to be contaminated, which means also the cattle is contaminated and so on.

      During a fallout there is no place to hide. We have to breathe, eat, and drink water.

      I have been avoiding certain things and other things just limiting.
      I haven't had any sea food since the Gulf Disaster, I miss crab the most.

      We have always lived with radiation. However, I believe that this disaster is beyond what our bodies and the environment can handle.


  • Somebody read this from Forbes and tell me if after reading you'd still trust their financial advice:

    Hot Tuna — More Fukushima Flotsam

    [by the way, it's easy to create an account with Forbes and comment using your Google, FB or other login]

    • Bobby1

      The motto of Forbes magazine is "The Capitalist Tool."

      That explains it all.

    • MaidenHeaven MaidenHeaven

      "The motto of Forbes magazine is "The Capitalist Tool."

      And that article is why you could not pay me to link Any accounts to Forbes. Linking those gives Forbes access to much more than your e-mail address.

    • hbjon hbjon

      Nothing more than a night time story to put the sheeple to sleep. Fantasy. Fiction. Can you imagine the financial interests in all this?

  • stopnp stopnp

    Wow. Radiation in fish may cause a rise in cancer huh?

    In other news… If you go out into the rain you might get wet. Or get cancer from the fallout 🙂

    The world was more honestly educated about radioactivity in the 50's.

  • odylan

    I suspect the salmon will get it worse than the tuna.

    And remember that salmon always return to the upper reaches of their home rivers and streams to lay their eggs before they die.