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?

Published: May 30th, 2012 at 11:05 am ET
By

75 comments


Pacific bluefin tuna transport Fukushima-derived radionuclides from Japan to California
Daniel J. Madigana,1, Zofia Baumannb, and Nicholas S. Fisher
Edited by Karl K. Turekian, Yale University, North Haven, CT
Approved April 25, 2012 (received for review March 22, 2012)

Excerpts

  • “Because bluefin tuna are harvested annually in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) […] for human consumption (2000 to 2010), the possibility of radioactive contamination raises public health concerns.
  • All 15 PBFT collected in 2011 contained 134Cs (4.0 ± 1.4 Bq kg−1 dry wt) and 137Cs (6.3 ±1.5 Bq kg−1) in white muscle tissue. At the time of capture, total 134+137Cs concentrations were about 10 times higher in 2011 PBFT than in PBFT from previous years.
  • Back-calculated 134Cs:137Cs ratios […] suggests that the radiocesium levels in California-caught PBFT were the result of <1 mo exposure to contaminated waters near Japan.
  • Other highly migratory species (HMS) (e.g., turtles, sharks, and seabirds) that forage near Japan may assimilate radiocesium and transport it to distant regions of the north and south Pacific.

Link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/95217354/Pacific-Bluefin-Tuna-Transport-Fukushima-Derived-Radionuclides-From-Japan-to-California-PNAS-April-2012-Madigan-1204859109

Pacific Bluefin Tuna Transport Fukushima-Derived Radionuclides From Japan to California – PNAS April 2012 M…

Published: May 30th, 2012 at 11:05 am ET
By

75 comments

Related Posts

  1. Head Researcher: California bluefin tuna with Fukushima cesium in waters near Japan for under a month? What will they look like after spending entire life there? (AUDIO) July 16, 2012
  2. 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
  3. California TV: Seafood industry CEO advises “stay away from bluefin tuna” — Worry that radiation could get worse before it gets better May 30, 2012
  4. BBC: Public health hazard from fish arriving in California waters? May be considerably more contaminated than radioactive tunas (VIDEO) May 29, 2012
  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

75 comments to 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?

  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture

    Everything in the ocean will have to be checked, thanks to nuclear power.

    • BreadAndButter BreadAndButter

      I just wonder who will tell and educate the fishermen on small islands, so-called "underdeveloped countries" that they need to check radiation in their daily catch before they get it on their families plates or sell it on the market.

      • What-About-The-Kids

        B & B, you raise a good question. Remember this bit of disturbing news about radioactive fish from Japan being sold to Tanzania last summer:

        http://thecitizen.co.tz/component/content/article/37-tanzania-top-news-story/13151-fear-as-suspect-japan-fish-enters-dar-market.html

        "Fear as suspect Japan fish enters Dar market"
        25 July 2011

        (snip):

        "The government has warned consumers in Dar es Salaam and elsewhere to be extra-careful when buying fish following reports of importation of the delicacy from Japan that might have been contaminated by radiation…"

        "The fish is suspected to have been contaminated with radiation produced by Japanese nuclear plants that were damaged by an earthquake and tsunami last March. In Arusha, the Tanzania Atomic Energy Commission (Taec) confirmed yesterday that its experts were investigating the consignment feared to have been thus contaminated."

        "…And in Dar es Salaam, a statement signed by permanent secretary in the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, Ms Blandina Nyoni, said 124.999 tonnes of fish suspected to have radioactive elements were imported by sea on July 18.

        "However, said the statement, on July 24, the government, in collaboration with TFDA and the police, seized 123.673 tonnes, indicating that at least 1.319 tonnes of the fish had already been transported upcountry or supplied in the city. The consignment was imported by the Alphakrust Ltd Company of Dar es Salaam from Kaneyama Corporation, a…

        • What-About-The-Kids

          (continued from above)…

          "…The consignment was imported by the Alphakrust Ltd Company of Dar es Salaam from Kaneyama Corporation, a Japanese company based in Chiba, Japan.

          The PS said the missing 1.3 tonnes are believed to have been transported to Morogoro municipality and Kilombero District and some other areas served by the Magogoni Ferry fish international market.“According to the information obtained from Alphakrust Ltd Company’s data base, some boxes of the fish were distributed in Dar and neighbouring Morogoro region,” reads part of the statement."

          • What-About-The-Kids

            But lest we forget, remember the recent news about the mislabeling of fish sold in American restaurants?:

            http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/17/local/la-me-seafood-fraud-report-20120417

            This, along with the Bluefin Tuna report, certainly does not inspire much confidence in the safety of our fish. Perhaps this will light a fire under the FDA (and similar agencies in other nations) to be more transparent and forthcoming with their testing procedures and results for radiation testing in our food?

            If not, the damage done to the fishing industry as the news spreads could be quite damaging. Time to step up to the plate, FDA, and tell us EXACTLY what the state of our food is, vis a vie, radiation levels from Fuku fallout (or other possible sources…)

      • moonshellblue moonshellblue

        BNB, they are telling us it is safe to eat so I would not think they would say anything. JMHO

        • many moons

          They are telling us that it is safe to eat cause they care more about profits than lives…..thanks Hillary for your contribution by signing the agreement that Japan exported food would not be tested…I know you are just a pupet but sometimes even a wooden headed dumb ass has a little courage to say NO.
          Please do the public a favor and stay out of politics

    • Wonder how the seal testing is coming along.

  • AGreenRoad AGreenRoad

    Fukushima; Pacific Ocean Catastrophe Confirmed; via A Green Road Blog http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/04/fukushima-pacific-ocean-catastrophe.html

  • reVivre

    For anybody preferring or needing a barrier-free download of the topic document and additional info please see:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/05/22/1204859109/suppl/DCSupplemental

  • aigeezer aigeezer

    "We report unequivocal evidence that Pacific bluefin tuna,
    Thunnus orientalis, transported Fukushima-derived radionuclides across the entire North Pacific Ocean."

    "…This result suggests that the radiocesium levels in California-caught PBFT were the result of < 1 mo exposure to contaminated waters near Japan." (less than one month exposure).

    There have already been voices saying it's only a little-bit contaminated. There is some truth to that, but it's not hard to extrapolate the implications for creatures that spend more than a month in Fukushima waters, for creatures that were not "sampled" (meaning killed) last August, and for creatures not yet exposed to the ongoing ever-spreading Fukushima emissions.

    I don't think the spin-artists will be able to bury this one once the implications sink in. Hint: it's not a story about what to eat for dinner.

  • Bobby1

    I'm having a hard time following their argument that the cesium originated from waters near Japan. They show a negative correlation between length of the fish and amount of cesium. They say it is not significant, but the sample size is only 15, and the statistical power is 0.507, which is well below the generally accepted 0.8. So the lack of significance can be attributed to the small sample size.

    How the fish size having, or not having, something to do with amount of cesium tells us something about where the fish accumulated the cesium at, I have no clue.

    • I agree Bobby1

      I'm especially skeptical the contamination occurred in Japan's coastal waters, given the findings of radioactive iodine in Ca kelp.

      I recall that the researchers only tested for Iodine and did not test for cesium or any other radionuclide.

      Every year we go to San Diego for vacation because we went to San Diego State Univ years ago.

      This will be the first year we don't go swimming at the La Jolla Cove. Last summer an upwelling made the water freezing so I bought a spring-suit to go swimming there because i knew it was probably the last time.

      • Bobby1

        majia, they're playing games with statistics, it's very common.

        Prof. Mori from Japan found there was as much as 6 times as much radioactive silver in fish than cesium. Apparently it bioaccumulates at a much higher rate. They should have tested for that too.

        • aigeezer aigeezer

          "They should have tested for that too."

          Why? (Not a hostile question, I just don't get your train of thought yet).

      • aigeezer aigeezer

        majia and Bobby1, do I understand your position correctly?

        I think you are saying that you believe the cesium contamination that originated at Fukushima is much more widely spread than the study concludes – that the tuna picked up their contamination outside Japanese waters, but that it is still Fukushima-originating contamination.

        If so, that would seem to put the study's conclusions into a "best case" possibility – and it is terrible enough to contemplate even so.

        If on the other hand you are thinking that the tuna did not have Fukushima-based contamination, then the detailed methodology blurb might be useful to pick through:

        http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2012/05/23/1204859109.DCSupplemental/pnas.201204859SI.pdf#nameddest=STXT

        I'm still wallowing in the quants, and I'm very much out of practice, but to my eye they seem to have used Spearman ranking appropriately on their data.

        • Bobby1

          aigeezer,

          The problem is this: "Spearman’s rank correlation was performed, and there was no significant relationship between Cs concentrations and size."

          They should have said: "Spearman’s rank correlation was performed, and there was no significant relationship between Cs concentrations and size, but this significance result is meaningless because there were not enough samples."

          • aigeezer aigeezer

            I don't think so, Bobby1. They are reporting they did not find a significant relationship. It would be inappropriate to speculate on the reasons for the absence of a relationship. Statistical methods such as Spearman, Kendall, Pearson etc. offer levels of confidence in the significance of results found, and they allow for sample size in those calculations. If you find significant results, your hypothesis is supported. If you don't, you can not infer causality.

            Of course the researchers might share your (reasonable) hunch that a larger sample might have revealed some hidden data, in which case they would probably use a larger sample "next time" in the hope of finding it. Meanwhile, we cannot validly infer any particular cause (such as sample size) for the absence of a significant result.

            • Bobby1

              aigeezer, I guess I was wasting my time then with my recent project developing statistical power functions.

              • aigeezer aigeezer

                Sounds like it.

                • Bobby1

                  You definitely need to submit this to a major journal. Your discovery of built-in statistical power will free up all sort of unnecessary resources that can be used for other things. It will certainly make my life easier. Power analysis is a pain in the ass.

                  • aigeezer aigeezer

                    Let's start over, Bobby1. I think:

                    "They are reporting they did not find a significant relationship. It would be inappropriate to speculate on the reasons for the absence of a relationship." (from my post above).

                    Are we in agreement on this part or not?

                    • Bobby1

                      Since there were not enough samples to reasonably expect a relationship to be found, it is inappropriate to even report on the lack of a relationship.

                    • aigeezer aigeezer

                      OK – I think I see where you are coming from. Are you saying that an n of 15 is not ever sufficient to seek correlations or that there is something about this case that makes 15 inappropriate?

                    • Bobby1

                      No one would ever fund a study with 15 subjects, if statistical analysis was involved. My point is, they found a negative correlation with size and amount of cesium, and then speciously explained it away. What that means, I don't know, I'm not a radiobiologist.

                    • aigeezer aigeezer

                      Looks like we're still far apart and perhaps irreconcilable on this issue, although probably not on the big picture stuff.

                      Maybe someone else will chime in. Maybe it will just fade away. Interesting topic, and thanks for the stimulation. I think our end-line positions are:

                      Me: "They are reporting they did not find a significant relationship. It would be inappropriate to speculate on the reasons for the absence of a relationship."

                      You: "they found a negative correlation with size and amount of cesium, and then speciously explained it away."

                      As for small sample sizes… it depends.

                      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3134305/

        • Weighing in…

          I agree with Bobby that the sample size is not adequate to infer source of contamination.

          There is no doubt that cesium is in CA waters if Iodine-131 was detected there.

          Further, "caesium 133, 135, and 137 are formed by the beta particle decay of the corresponding xenon isotopes" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_products_%28by_element%29)

          Radioxenon levels were 40,000X Average Concentration In Pacific Northwest in Week Following Accident.  Bowyer, T. W. et al. (2011). Elevated Radioxenon Detected Remotely Following the Fukushima Nuclear Accident. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 102, 681-687

          • Bobby1

            majia, this might seems like a very minor point. But if it can be shown that the tuna picked up the contamination off California, and not just off Japan, then the entire seafood industry of the North Pacific would be imperiled. Billions of dollars are at stake, maybe trillions. The nuclear industry would be obligated to recompense the whole industry… this single issue could bring down the nuclear industry for good.

            • Yes

              Also, what about the cesium detected in Ca cedar pollen?

              If it is in the pollen of trees, it is going to be in fruits and vegetables

              The entire pacific coast is the source for many fresh fruits and vegetables in the US

              Researching the history of radiation and atmospheric testing for the first time I realize that the military-defense industry has been lying for 60 plus years about radiation in our food.

              So, they think they can keep on lying.

              what i'm learning though is that the legacy of that testing is encoded in our genome, expressed metaphorically as a mosaic of normal and mutated genes.

              We will reach a point where the mosaic is so inflected by mutations that we cannot successfully reproduce.

              I don't know when or how that point will be reached, but I believe Fukushima is moving us ever closer to that point in the northern hemisphere.

              If the emissions are not stopped it may prove the tipping point…

              • Bobby1

                I know you know this info!

              • Bobby1

                "what i'm learning though is that the legacy of that testing is encoded in our genome, expressed metaphorically as a mosaic of normal and mutated genes.

                We will reach a point where the mosaic is so inflected by mutations that we cannot successfully reproduce."

                Or reproduce only children with birth defects, severe autism, autoimmune diseases, disabled people who are unable to produce in the economy… a burden shouldered by an increasingly tiny set of remaining healthy people.

              • What-About-The-Kids

                Well said, Majia. I too share your concerns about the ongoing and irrevocable damage to the human genome.

                Surely others amongst "TPTB" share our concern? If so, where is the ACTION needed to stop this wholesale murder of the human race? (not to mention the animal species,) 🙁

            • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

              Kelp collected off the coast of California..has been identified as to have radiation originating from Fukushima..
              Kelp does not travel..and had to have received contamination …at the source of collection.
              http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es203598r
              All marine life in the area ..would be in range of contamination.

            • PhilipUpNorth philipupnorth

              Bobby1: Pacific seafood industry is already toast. 100% loss. Think about it. It's dead, but just doesn't know it, yet. Many trillions of dollars has been lost in the Fuku Catastrophe. Japan Inc. is gone. Who will want to risk that the product they are buying from Japan will be radioactive? Japan food exports will soon be zero (in spite of Hiliary Clinton's sellout deal to keep importing Fuku-poisoned food from Japan without testing. Criminal). And even Japanese now refuse to eat anything grown in Japan or caught in Japanese waters. Trillions of dollars up in smoke. California Dairy is still advertising on TV in my market. Anyone want to try dairy products from California? Anyone at all? The public is wakeing up. Leafy greens from California? Strawberries from California? Don't worry, you can cleate those radioactive heavy metal toxins with radioactive California kelp. Apples from Washington state? Idaho potatos? Anyone? Any buyers at all out there? Alaskan King Crab? Nobody? Nobody at all. Trillions of dollars in losses. Man-made catastrophy. 🙁

          • aigeezer aigeezer

            Thanks for the update majia. I'm starting to feel my age. Please bear with me.

            "…the sample size is not adequate to infer source of contamination."

            I guess I'm wondering whether it's a sample size issue or rather an issue of lack of precise knowledge about tuna movements, diet, contamination levels in various locations, and so forth.

            When we all started looking at this stuff my main take-away was something like "all tuna sampled off California had Fukushima-signature radiation". I was caught off-balance by the notion that the Fukushima-signature radiation may have come from local California waters, although I knew about the kelp. For me, the first version was sufficient for proof-of-disaster, the second version makes things even worse.

            Somehow, Bobby1 and I got into a sample size debate but I think we all believe the situation is extremely bad. I would take no comfort in seeing proof that the tuna "only" got contaminated near Fukushima.

            • Yes I think you are correct in that Aigeezer:

              IF we know that 99% of tuna behave in a given fashion,

              at particular points in the year,

              and under given water conditions,

              THEN we could use a sample of 15 to predict their recent locations with some degree of certainty.

              HOWEVER, it is the same problem with using stats to predict derivatives

              IF the input conditions change (e.g., sea water temperature changes due to radiation emissions from plant), THEN our modeling matrix may no longer be accurate

              E.g., with the financial crisis, the inability to re-finance a home was totally unpredicted by the risk models of default.

              SO, even if scientists previously had excellent models of tuna behavior, those models may no longer be accurate.

              However, I don't think we would

    • moonshellblue moonshellblue

      It contained Cesium 134 which has a half life of two years and combined with C-137 is a marker for Fukushima. That is my understanding someone correct me if I'm wrong. I wonder if any Strontium was detected or other contaminates.

  • Gaikokujin Gaikokujin

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyODAieB51M

    I just today realized that I might have a solution to this problem. You can add me as friend in facebook, Henri Markku Mikael Lentonen if you want to help with the project somehow. Couple years ago I started to farm worms and there started the bonsai ecosystem project. And then Fukushima exploded. And now I realize that this project might help the sit…uation and even save lifes. But I didnt realize that it wont help japanese people when it is in Finnish.. So now I need someone to translate it to Japan. The main point is that even if you go out every day for example work, the home will be your shelter where is the most minimun amount of radiation. And the radiation will be removed from the air with three main ways:
    – you seal your house from the outside air
    – you grow as many plants as you can to produce oxygen and also, tha plants will remove the radiation from the air
    – I also have a prototype of a new kind of radiation filter, which works with electrocity. So the idea is that you first pump the air to water (about 30 liter container) with aquarium air pump. Then when the radiation is sticked with the water, it will then travel to tunnel where is activated carbon, which also removes the radiation. And the last thing it will then again go through the water, to remove the charchoal dust and the last parts of the radiation.
    If your body is getting all the time radiation inside, it will not get any rest. If your body will not get…

  • Gaikokujin Gaikokujin

    at home, where then? In death? The best thing of course is to stay indoors all the time you can to avoid radiation particles to get inside you.
    There have been some people doing suicide in Japan. Which are connected to Fukushima nuclear accident. So I think this is from two main reasons: people are angry to government and tepco and want to protest. And people are frustrated, couse the radiation is a silent killer and they can not fight against it: like ultimate ninja, that can sneak behind you and kill you and you wont even notice it..

    So this bonsai ecosystem is good for two reasons:

    – it will help people to live without radiation, which can save lives.
    – it will give people something to work with and that will give happines to them, which they now need in these hard times.. And this can also save lives i think.. There was this japanese authority, which sayed something like "if you keep smiling, radiation will not affect you" and I think he was quite right with this: if you are willing to fight and full of chi, your body will work against the radiation more effectivily. But if you are down and your body is at low energy, it will perish..

    You can see the project here (it is still in Finnish) http://www.forum.BonekoBrothers.com

    • dharmasyd dharmasyd

      Hola Markuu, Greetings from an American Finn (surname- Vilen). I am neighbor of really good Finn (Siitonen), he does translations Finn to Eng & reverse, but no Japanese. Your English is good. Why don't you translate to English, if you can't find someone to translate Finn to Japanese directly.

  • jump-ball jump-ball

    Professional Alaska fisherman, below, says tuna are contaminated and he will be testing in 5 areas he fishes, and some of his 10 radiation links are new to me:

    http://progressivealaska.blogspot.com/2012/05/pacific-bluefin-tuna-migrating-from.html

    • jump-ball jump-ball

      With 20 plus concerned, honest, technologically capable citizens such as this, a revealing public light could be shown on the unfolding disaster being futilely kept in the dark by our lame print and broadcast media lackeys and the corrupt corporate and government authorities.

      I've never felt better about the 500 long-dated cans of tuna and salmon I stacked before 3/11 and within 6 months after, or felt worse for the future of Pacific seafood.

      • Whoopie Whoopie

        What the mainstream press have failed to do, the alternativ­e media are simply getting on and doing…and it's only going to get bigger.

        • jump-ball jump-ball

          Any alternative media communication has got a long way to go W: I'll guess we're in the 1/100th of 1%, or less, who see what has happened, and anticipate how suddenly the food and atmospheric consequences will impact public health and safety.

          We are prepared, and yet discouraged.

        • dharmasyd dharmasyd

          I want to commend Whoopie's comment. She's trying. The awareness is growing. We just need to keep trying. It is the only thing we can do…even if we don't win, or if it is too late…we keep trying…

        • moonshellblue moonshellblue

          The government has declared an info war on alternative media which was stated by HIllary and can be seen on RT. I hope this does not shut down these informative news sites, time will tell.

      • WildTurnip WildTurnip

        I envy your tuna stash 😉 I stocked up after 3-11 as well, but don't have anywhere near 500+ cans. And, I have been eating it, so have even less now.

        Tuna secret –
        Bumble Bee pouch albacore tuna is a product of Trinidad.

        • jump-ball jump-ball

          TY for that info: the pouch price is high and the stale date is short, but unlike current Pacific tuna varieties, it could still be added to the stack.

          We may be facing a 'situational' or regional food selection choice, like when I couldn't get KI in 2011, I bought kelp – from the Atlantic.

          • WildTurnip WildTurnip

            True about the price/best by dates. I've been stocking food and other essentials for about 5 years now. Nice to not have to go out in a snow storm to get something I need 😉

            I've been taking an iodine/potassium iodide supplement (Iodoral) for quite some time, so had some when Fukushima happened, but it was hard to find and the price went way up.

        • dharmasyd dharmasyd

          Anyone know anything about yellowfin tuna as food? Would this work in sashimi or sushi? Any other suggestions?

          I'm getting out of food sources. And Air Sandwiches (Prana Bughers) are not an answer to rads.

          • aigeezer aigeezer

            Yellowfin is a standard offering for sashimi or sushi. Order "ahi" if you want it. People sometimes confuse it with yellowtail (hamachi).

            Yellowfin tuna is routinely available in supermarkets where I now live (Eastern Canada). Most people who buy it here prepare it as steaks, seared, but this is a part of the world that does not eat sushi. I used to live on the Pacific coast and I really miss Asian cuisine, pre-Fukushima cuisine, I guess.

            http://thenibble.com/reviews/main/fish/seafood/sushi-glossary.asp

  • I think the Precautionary Principle would advise staying well away from fish. Otherwise we'll have to speak to each fish individually:

    "Are you an ICRP fish or an ECRR fish?"
    Ans: "I'm a sick fish under any model so don't eat me."

    Well, let's say it again for the newbies:

    http://femalefaust.blogspot.ca/2012/05/this-pdf-on-radiation-and-nuclear.html

    "The traditional concept of dosage, when misapplied to low levels of radiation, is a perfect instrument of camouflage. It is relied upon because it so successfully disguises underlying
    biological effects.

    The successful model for calculating dosage and dose effects for high doses of external photon irradiation, by sleight of hand, is overlaid on a dimension of reality for which it doesn’t apply. The science that supports the nuclear establishment forces this fit. It is the basis for the unfounded assumption, rigorously defended, that low-dose effects can be accurately extrapolated from verifiable high-dose effects.

    This abuse of the concept of dosage is one of the
    cornerstones of the conspiracy to hide the health effects of nuclear pollution. It is an intentional misrepresentation of the phenomenon, upheld by the radiation protection community, to confuse people and distract intellectual inquiry into the safety of exposure to low levels of internal emitters."

    • Bobby1

      Pu239, if there is cesium in the fish there is probably iodine, strontium, uranium, plutonium, radioactive silver, radioactive sulfur, tellurium, barium, lanthanum, xenon, krypton, promethium, europium, and californium in it too, along with 1,000 other nuclides.

      • Thanks Bobby1:

        Agreed, and thanks for the reminder.

        I guess at some point it's useless to even give them names: they're all nasty man-made particles that kill.

        They all radiate inside a human body forever and cause all manner of health problems – cancer, leukemia, cystic fibrosis, Chernobyl heart, premature aging, decreased intelligence and so on.

        From the viewpoint of a particle, the particle would not know whether it was a high-level or a low-level one.

        • That is, a low-level cloud of particles can result in a very high-level dosage to a specific part of the body – especially if ingested.

    • many moons

      Good point…don't forget the sick fish from the gulf ….hmmm no milk, no fish, no beef, no…..the list is getting longer, the space is growing smaller.
      Humans are very stupid….." didn't we have it all"….just had to harness the atom…didn't work out well in the end and there are msny reactors waiting to follow Fuku's example.

      • PhilipUpNorth philipupnorth

        So, manymoons, I'll just have to become a vegetarian again, right? Grains, some rice? Leafy green vegetables? All radioactive, you say? 🙁 Distributors don't have to list country of origin on food products? My geiger counter won't measure radiation in the food I am buying? (Come on, one of you inventors out there. We need a tool for scanning food in stores and restaurants. Plugs into our cell phones, perhaps?). Perhaps I'll quit eating, altogether. Go live in a cave up on the mountain.

  • Sickputer

    To me the million dollar question is: Did they find plutonium or other super toxic isotopes?

    The FDA 2004 derived intervention level for plutonium is 2 becquerels per kilogram of food. Tiny amount for a known killer. Page 5 in this document:

    http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp143-c8.pdf

    SP: Plutonium is the smoking gun for this crisis because of the huge cloud of vaporized MOX fuel that wafted away from Unit 3 after the massive explosion (I subscribe to the steam/nuclear explosion theory similar to what we suspect happened at the Chernobyl Unit 4 explosion).

    The governments are trying to hide proof of plutonium-contamination in seafood or other venues as long as possible. I think they already have the proof.

    Independent testing should detect plutonium in migratory fish this summer. When that happens the seafood industry will take an enormous hit… far worse than other food scandals in the past. If someone proves the NRC/EPA/FDA colluded to hide earlier results…then Romney will have his debate issue points that can topple a sitting president.

    Romney has the personal fortune to sponsor private fish testing himself (PACS are probably slanted pro-nuke). If he wants to win… and is not himself a nuclear industry pawn… Then he can blow away Obama on the nuclear industry issues alone. But does he have the desire to do it?

  • GeoHarvey

    I keep reading that the tuna ate something at Japan and then migrated to California. Do we know this for sure? Is it possible they were nowhere near Japan but got cesium that moved up the food chain after falling with rain into the ocean, many miles from Fukushima?

    • dharmasyd dharmasyd

      GeoH…"Do we know this for sure?" Nope. Thx for asking. It doesn't 'feel' too likely though.

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    By zeroing in on a certain kind of fish..narrows the public concern..when in fact all marine life off the west coast should be tested.

    • PhilipUpNorth philipupnorth

      Bio-concentration works like this: A little radiation in the soil or water becomes concentrated when metabolized by bacteria and plants. Water and radiation are ingested, but only some of the radiation is excreted. Animals who eat plankton or grass concentrate the radiation in their muscles and organs. Preditors and omnivores who eat these animals (humans) concentrate radiation the most. "It's elementary, my dear Watson". In the end, the prepper with 500 packs of pre-Fuku tuna in their stash, will breath in radiation on their daily walk. The eater will ingest cesium and more as they eat their fruits, vegetables, Dairy products, and meats. They will join each other in the hospital, fighting cancer together. Along with all the other preppers and eaters and breathers. In 20 years, or less. Before Fuku, only half of us in the US were going to get cancer during our lifetimes. Now, after Fuku, that is much closer to 100%. 😮

  • StPaulScout StPaulScout

    Reactor made radionuclides are far more poisonous than anything you would find naturaly occuring in nature. Eat contaminated food if you want, but you will ingest poisonous shit, that will build up in you, and give you cancer, and quite possibly kill you. It raises many difficult questions. What about beef, pork, chicken and turkey, grains, fruits, vegetables, everything. It has all been exposed to shit floating around in the air and getting rained out onto the ground. The earth itself, the source of most of our food, has been shit upon by the reactors at Fukushima. Is it even an option to CARE about what we eat and drink?

    • PhilipUpNorth philipupnorth

      StPaulScout: You are so right. There is nothing to be done, as we will ALL get ours in the end. 🙁 So some advice, if I may. Enjoy every day. Spend quality time with those you love (put the smartphone down, and turn off the TV). Create a list of what's really important to you, and spend time doing what is most important to you. Create a bucket list of those things you've always wanted to do, and the places you've always wanted to visit, and get busy. Enjoy your life. And quit worrying about the things like Fuku, which you can't do anything about. Most importantly, StPaulScout, though I love your indignation and incredulity over the fact that humanity did this to ourselves, I'm asking you to get off ENEnews now, and go do something fun. You've learned what you had to learn. Time is short.

    • Sam Sam

      We must care about what we eat and do enjoy as best as we can what we eat.
      If we loose the pleasure from food what a loss. Bio-accumulation is there and will
      be getting worse . What we can do is to practice caloric restriction. eat the minimum
      necessary amount ,enjoy it and not worry too much. To be morbid I would say
      take your poison in small doses. Also important to do cellular re-mediation.

  • many moons

    If the fish is radioactive from the water, and the water is radioactive, doesn't the water get absorbed into the atmophere and so isn't the air radioactive? And isn't being on the water, in boats close to all that radioactivity dangerous???
    And won't this effect the people living near the water as the people in the gulf were contaminated from the toxic vapors?

    • jec jec

      @many moons Yes.

    • dharmasyd dharmasyd

      manymoons…Yes. All of the above.

    • What-About-The-Kids

      Yes, Many Moons. See Chris Busby's report on the llrc.org website, in which he studied the increased cases of childhood leukemia and cancers along the coastal strip in N. Wales, due to exposures from Sellafield in Ireland dumping into the Irish Sea.

      He found the method of transport from sea to air near the sea caused the radioactive particles to be airborne, and breathed into the lungs, which were then transported to other areas of the body, creating the diseases in the children living near the coast.

      Here's a link to the. pdf:

      http://www.llrc.org/health/subtopic/menai.pdf

  • teamplayer

    We already knew that kelp in California waters was found to have radioactive particles. Many species of fish eat kelp. Kelp is also eaten by a lot of invertebrate species.
    So, while the focus is on bluefin tuna, I think there is reason to be cautious with Pacific seafood, period.

  • Jebus Jebus

    As for Pacific Bluefin Tuna, I think there is a pretty good baseline for ALL things Pacific Bluefin Tuna, before Fukushima…

    Tuna Research and Conservation Center

    http://www.tunaresearch.org/publications.html