Published: May 28th, 2012 at 6:29 pm ET
|
Trace Radiation Found In West Coast Tuna
CNN
May 28, 2012
[...] low levels of radioactive cesium from Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident turned up in fish caught off California in 2011, researchers reported Monday.Tissue samples taken from 15 bluefin caught in August, five months after the meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi, all contained reactor byproducts [...]
But neither thought they were likely to find cesium at all, they said. And since the fish tested were born about a year before the disaster, “This year’s fish are going to be really interesting,” Madigan said.
“There were fish born around the time of the accident, and those are the ones showing up in California right now,” he said. “Those have been, for the most part, swimming around in those contaminated waters their whole lives.”
[...]
And if any fish are found with dangerous levels of radioactive material in their tissue, “It would be our responsibility to report it right away,” he said.
[...]
Published: May 28th, 2012 at 6:29 pm ET
|
sending...
Hmm. I have 4 cans of tuna in my cupboard that I bought 6 months ago. I am sure it is safer that what you can buy now. How long does it keep?
Report Comment
BC sez…I have 4 cans of tuna in my cupboard that I bought 6 months ago.
>I am sure it is safer that what you can buy now.
SP: Not necessarily…depends on where the post-311 tuna traveled and the contamination level of their food.
>How long does it keep?
SP: A very long time…3 to 10 years…even longer for canned salmon. If we had been clairvoyant we could be rich now selling 2010 salmon and tuna fish. Probably still quite a stock of pre-311 cans in the heartland of America in mom and pop stores. The trick is reading the label codes. There's a radiation-free goldmine in those old general stores. Salmon especially since it is usually far more expensive.
Report Comment
I posted your GREAT advice at Hp sick. ty
Report Comment
That four cans will have to keep you going for the next 3 BILLION years..
It is great that they are testing for iodine and cesium, and the fast to decay poisons…
Now how about testing for these 93?
93 Long life Radiation Contaminants; via A Green Road Blog http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/93-long-lived-nuclear-elements.html
Report Comment
This story has a bit more detail than the San Diego story, enjoy those last few cans of tuna in your house. I won't buy anymore.
Report Comment
TUNA FISH MIGRATION MAP http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=163008957162786&set=a.161277294002619.34533.100003610489418&type=1&theater
Report Comment
It's hit FluffPo Radioactive tuna travels nearly 10,000 km http://huff.to/KnL5c8 via @HuffPostCanada
Report Comment
COME ON GUYS! JOIN IN! NOW IS THE TIME 4 ALL TRUTH TELLERS TO COME TO THE AID OF SHEEPLE!!!!!!!
Report Comment
Nevermind…
"I can tell that F l u ff buried this story by the sudden STOPPAGE of comments. MSM is to blame for more people not knowing what's going on in Japan. It's shameful that no one will ever know WHAT K I L L E D everything in their countries. Their relatives, their lives, the planet. nite folks.
Report Comment
Posted here…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/MAX1/japan-nuclear-emergency-laws_n_1550267_157448012.html
Report Comment
error message on link
Report Comment
Whoopie I was on huffpo Ca on the tuna story tonight,(my comp hates huffpo it keeps trying to load something and fails so runs top speed and gets nowhere) but pro nuke Dana 1982 admitted that background radiation can cause cancer, she posted about bananas and flights and I kept at it till she admitted cancer from background source, now we just need to convince that manmade radiation on top of background only increases the risk.
Report Comment
And if any fish are found with dangerous levels of radioactive material in their tissue, “It would be our responsibility to report it right away,” he said.
? …… … that was fast.
So the Seals, Polar Bears, Eskimos, etc. Wheres that data?
Report Comment
Check this goldfish:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2151091/Fisherman-goes-angling-carp–discovers-fish-body-goldfish-head-roach-fin-bream.html
Report Comment
Cambridge what State? Europe? Mass?
Report Comment
UK
Report Comment
From the article:
"By comparison, naturally occurring potassium-40 levels average about 350 bq/kg"
The amounts found "between 61 and 168 bq/kg." off of Japan and "about 10 becquerels per kilogram of dry weight" off California don't seem high enough to be harmful. Bring on the fish fry! They need to keep checking as levels might rise or be concentrated on some species.
Report Comment
Radioactive Hook Up…
This is what we have been saying all along; Japan's radioactive pollution is spreading Globally…
Fisherman will now have to add Geiger counters to their tackle boxes!
What a Nuclear Waste!
Report Comment
Please also remember my fellow mammals, the signature Cesium isotope for Fukushima radiation is the fresh and much more radioactive Cs134 and not the Cs137 we hear constant bleating about.
I hope mammals wake up to its more hideous radiation output, 15 times that of its much quieter sister Cs137.
Report Comment
Geiger counters, jet streams, debris and other radiation monitoring links
http://realitycheck.no-ip.info/forum/index.php?topic=20.0
Report Comment
…tuna samples off California had Fukushima radiation… back in AUGUST 2011…
WTF!??
What else are they delaying to report besides plutonium results?
Report Comment
Worth remembering:
Nuclear Controversies by Vladimir Tchertkoff; Released in 2003, 51 minutes
30:20 – According to Professor Yury Bandazhevsky (former director of the Medical Institute in Gomel), "Over 50 Bq/kg of body weight lead to irreversible lesions in vital organs" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8746168177815160826#
Worth keeping in mind:
According to PEER’s news release in 2010, proposed new guidelines would permit the current lifetime limit of radiation exposure to occur in a single glass of water while significantly reducing EPA radiological clean-up standards, essentially permitting a 25 percent cancer per exposure (PEER, 2010 http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1325).
Report Comment
Current derived intervention levels for radionuclides in food by FDA
The 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
These guidelines state that the “alternate units for milk” in picocuries per liter are the following:
SR-90 4400
I-131 4700
Cs-134 + Cs-137 33,000
These are the levels tolerated in milk by the US FDA.
Report Comment
What will be the intervention when such levels are achieved – mass funeral, or what? Sr goes to the bones 100%.It does not come out.Cs does, but 50 Bq of Cs stored in human body make irreversible tissue changes. Can you imagine how many atoms of Pu with these different half lives have to be present in order to provide 2 disintegrations every second? It is impossible, because if it is only Pu239 the amount will be completely different from the sample, which contains only Pu238.
Report Comment
One has to wonder tolerated for HOW LONG? It sounds like the FDA is looking at a single event situation, or is this for daily consumption over a lifetime. Lifetime is what we are talking here..Just Saying.
Report Comment
Finally, one more important comment about bio-accumulation.
We are not just eating contaminated tuna, unfortunately.
Why the ICRP and EPA Models for Radiation Risk Understate Risks Significantly
EPA: Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/federal/402-r-99-001.pdf
page 3
"For both internal and external exposure, a risk coefficient for a given radionuclide is based on the assumption that this is the only radionuclide present in the environmental medium. That is, doses due to decay chain members produced in the environment prior to the intake of, or external exposure to, the radionuclides are not considered”
Report Comment
"right away"… thanks for the heads-up (9 mos later) ~laura in oregon (that's right, oregon)
Report Comment
Maybe I missed it, but do we have any information how high those levels in the tuna are??
Report Comment
Per the article, "10 times less"…than what?
Report Comment
Fukushima: Hawaii & Arizona Dairy Milk Test Up To 800% Higher Than Safety Limits; via A Green Road Blog
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/04/fukushima-hawaii-arizona-dairy-milk.html
Report Comment