U.S. Seafood Provider Testing for Fukushima Contamination: “Growing concern for potential radiation affecting the nation’s seafood” — ‘Trace’ amounts may have been present in ‘rare’ cases

Published: May 3rd, 2012 at 12:47 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
63 comments


Press Release: Vital Choice Pacific Seafood Passes Radiation Tests
Vital Choice Wild Seafood & Organics, the leading source for fast home delivery of the world’s finest wild seafood from Alaska and the North Pacific
May 02, 2012
Emphasis Added

After the devastating earthquake and tsunami in Fukushima last March, the team at Vital Choice Wild Seafood & Organics wanted to ensure that they were taking every safety precaution possible for their customers. Addressing a growing concern for potential radiation affecting the nation’s seafood, Vital Choice contracted Eurofins, the world leader in food testing, to test their wild Alaskan salmon and North Pacific seafood for radioactive elements. Vital Choice is proud to announce that the test results proved that all of their seafood products are completely safe for human consumption.

The harmful radioactive isotopes that were released in significant amounts from the Fukushima plant, primarily Cesium-134, Cesium-137 and Iodine-131, were not present in almost every case. The trace amounts that may have been present in rare cases fell below the extremely low, very safe levels detectable with current technology. It is important to note that all food emits some radiation, because a small percentage of the elements in them naturally occur in the unstable forms called radioactive isotopes. Normally, the amounts of radioactive isotopes in foods are harmless. Following an accidental release of radiation, plants and animals can absorb radioactive isotopes, which may reach unsafe levels in affected foods. This is why Vital Choice Wild Seafood & Organics wanted to make absolutely sure that their products were not affected, and could not jeopardize the safety of any of their customers.

Randy Hartnell, president and founder of Vital Choice, made it clear in his company newsletter that these test results matched their expectations. He noted that radiation released from Japan’s nuclear plants is very unlikely to contaminate seafood harvested from Alaskan or North Pacific waters. Although none of the Vital Choice seafood is caught, spawns, or swims near the stricken nuclear plant, Hartnell felt it was important to reassure anyone who had concerns about their health and safety when enjoying Vital Choice seafood.

He says, “After all, Vital Choice families are among the largest consumers of our own fish! As far as we know, Vital Choice is the only U.S. seafood company to release radiation test results for its products. Our goal is to deliver the purest wild seafood to our customers, and they are applauding our efforts.”

ABOUT VITAL CHOICE WILD SEAFOOD & ORGANICS:
Before founding Vital Choice in 2001, Northwest Washington native Randy Hartnell spent more than 20 years as a commercial fisherman in Alaska. Today, Vital Choice is the leading source for fast home delivery of the world’s finest wild Alaskan seafood, whole-food supplements, and organic fare. Vital Choice foods are the purest available, always sustainably harvested from healthy, well-managed wild fisheries and organic farms. The company’s products are recognized for their superior taste and health benefits and endorsed by leading health and wellness experts, including physicians specializing in nutrition, pediatrics, and integrative health care.

For more about Vital Choice Wild Seafood & Organics, please visit http://www.vitalchoice.com.

Published: May 3rd, 2012 at 12:47 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
63 comments

Related Posts

  1. NRC email on potential contamination of Alaska waters from Fukushima radiation January 11, 2012
  2. TV: “Could it really happen?” State of Washington testing CLAMS for Fukushima radiation — Salmon and steelhead also — Will continue “until public concern abates” (VIDEO) May 7, 2012
  3. Radiation fallout poses growing threat: 2,600+ cattle contaminated; More vegetables at unsafe levels — No centralized system, only voluntary tests July 25, 2011
  4. Congress: Radiation might be detected in U.S. waters — “Could remain a valid concern for years” — Potential for corridor of “highly contaminated” water traveling away from Japan April 8, 2012
  5. USATODAY: Thyroid cancer cases on the rise, say specialists — “There is definitely something going on” — I used to see 4 a year, now it can be 4 a month January 15, 2012

63 comments to U.S. Seafood Provider Testing for Fukushima Contamination: “Growing concern for potential radiation affecting the nation’s seafood” — ‘Trace’ amounts may have been present in ‘rare’ cases

  • Jebus Jebus

    "The harmful radioactive isotopes that were released in significant amounts from the Fukushima plant, primarily Cesium-134, Cesium-137 and Iodine-131, were not present in almost every case. The trace amounts that may have been present in rare cases fell below the extremely low, very safe levels detectable with current technology."

    Sound familiar?

    This company saw an opportunity as the truth is being let out in small sushi bites.

    The art of damage control at it's finest….


    Report comment

    • Jebus Jebus

      Hmm, there's money to be made….

      Eurofins signs an agreement to acquire a majority stake in Nihon Kankyo (Japan)

      23 April 2012

      Eurofins Scientific (EUFI.PA), the global leader in food, environment and pharmaceutical product testing services has signed an agreement to acquire a 52.6% majority stake in Nihon Kankyo K.K. (Nihon Environmental Services), a leading player in the environmental laboratory services market in Japan, on 31 March 2012. The transaction is expected to be completed this week.

      http://www.eurofins.com/en/media-centre/press-releases/2012-04-23.aspx


      Report comment

    • dharmasyd dharmasyd

      Woof Woof, Jebus! My dog agrees.


      Report comment

    • vital1 vital1

      This is how governments have deceived the public about food safety radiation levels worldwide.

      They first release an article like this one. I am using the EU as an example here.

      Extract from article link below:

      “EU boosts food import controls after Japanese nuclear disaster. The European Union is to step up controls on food imports from Japan in the wake of the nuclear accident at Fukushima – but stressed there was no evidence that consumers in the region were at risk from radiation-contaminated food.

      The EU ruling insists that all products from these prefectures are tested before leaving Japan and said they will be subject to random testing in the bloc. Japanese authorities will have to provide a declaration confirming products do not contain radioactive elements – called radionuclides – that exceed EU maximum levels. The Commission highlighted radionuclides iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137."

      http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/Quality-Safety/EU-boosts-food-import-controls-after-Japanese-nuclear-disaster

      This makes you feel warm and cosy inside, because you think your government is looking after you and your family.


      Report comment

      • vital1 vital1

        This article "EU boosts food import controls after Japanese nuclear disaster" is a clever deception because they then proceed to quietly raise the EU maximum safety levels by 20x for caesium-134 and caesium-137. Governments worldwide have used this same tactic.

        http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/eu-secretly-ups-cesium-safety-level-in-food-20-fold/

        They then tell the public everything is testing below safety levels, nothing toworry about!

        Here is another example, Japan this time.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc6FPIK1Va

        So what food safety levels are this company using?
        The new 20x or 30x higher ones set by the government after 3/11, or the old per Fukushima levels.


        Report comment

        • vital1 vital1

          I am suggesting you really need to do your research before accepting any food testing announcement.

          If they simply say it is below safety levels without providing data, I would consider it questionable.

          If they are providing the testing data, it more likely to be genuine.

          Then you need to know what food safety level benchmark they are using, pre or post Fukushima.

          Any food testing program is also a spot check. They can't test every item. Fish in this case.

          This then brings up the question of how many food samples their tests are based on, and over what time period.

          Fisherman can catch fish in widely different areas every time they go out, do they test every catch?


          Report comment

          • RutherfordsGhost

            Correct.
            Because those in governments have limited coal face experience in nuclear facilities and cleaning up other peoples messes. The don't understand science, they want it all dealt with in neat sheets with tick boxes and bullet points.
            There are serious issues about plutonium contamination, and tritium, little alone strontium and caesium issues. The isotopic enrichment of our food supply with fission fragments is unparalleled.


            Report comment

      • HoTaters HoTaters

        Vital1, warm and fuzzy, yes, especially when they don't release any numbers for what was found!


        Report comment

    • NoPrevarication NoPrevarication

      @Jebus

      I no longer believe anything a corporation says. Independent testing only.


      Report comment

  • Jebus Jebus

    U. S. Regulatory Requirements for Irradiating Foods
    May 1999
    Presentation by George H. Pauli*
    Legal Requirements
    The role of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in determining whether foods may be irradiated in this country stems from the passage, in 1958, of the Food Additives Amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).(1) In that legislation, Congress explicitly defined a source of radiation as a food additive. In a report accompanying the legislation, Congress explicitly stated: "Sources of radiation (including radioactive isotopes, particle accelerators, and X-ray machines) intended for use in processing food are included in the term ‘food additive' as defined in this legislation". The Food Additives Amendment also provides that a food is adulterated (that is, it cannot be marketed legally) if it has been intentionally irradiated, unless the irradiation is carried out in conformity with a regulation prescribing safe conditions of use. Note here that the statute does not define the form of energy – radiation – or the process – irradiation – as an additive, but the equipment used to irradiate the food. Note also that the specific and explicit adulteration provision for irradiated foods is unlike that for foods which are adulterated because they contain a food additive that is unsafe within the meaning of the Act. Clearly, no one expected a food to contain a source of radiation.


    Report comment

    • Jebus Jebus

      I mention this arcane legislative history to highlight the common misunderstanding that the statute somehow foolishly considers irradiation to be an additive rather than a process. As mentioned above, the bill report refers to sources of radiation used to process food.

      The legislative history makes clear that the Food Additives Amendment does not exempt any meat or meat food product from requirements under the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1907. Furthermore, poultry products are also subject to the Poultry Products Inspection Act. Thus, anyone interested in irradiating meat or poultry is also subject to the regulatory authority of the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture (USDA).

      Additionally, one reason for irradiating some foods is to protect U.S. agriculture from the import of exotic pests. USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) administers the law by quarantining certain crops from transport into the country. Quarantine requirements may often be met in a variety of ways. If irradiation is to be used for such a purpose, requirements of APHIS must be met.

      In sum, irradiating a food is illegal unless it is done in accordance with a regulation authorizing such processing and with all other requirements of a variety of laws. Because my expertise is limited to the law administered by FDA, I will focus my presentation on that aspect.


      Report comment

        • Jebus Jebus

          So, no worries, it's a food additive.
          But, under the rules is has to be labeled as an additive.
          Isn't there a legal precedent here if, and I quote the above forum topic again:

          "The harmful radioactive isotopes that were released in significant amounts from the Fukushima plant, primarily Cesium-134, Cesium-137 and Iodine-131, were not present in almost every case. The trace amounts that may have been present in rare cases fell below the extremely low, very safe levels detectable with current technology."

          ??


          Report comment

          • Hot Tuna Hot Tuna

            The longer the half-life, the harder it is to detect. So it's very simple taken to the next level – they must make a legally enforceable statement that low levels of plutonium are 'very safe'. Then everybody can be happy and party like it's 1999!!!


            Report comment

          • desara3

            Yes, it is the "primarily Cesium-134, Cesium-137 and Iodine-131, were not present in almost every case." that sounds illegal. Well what about the cases it was found in? It must be acceptable if the fish was irradiated from a nuclear power plant. The new Fukushima regulation.


            Report comment

          • andii

            But even 1 Bq (1 disintegrate per second) doesn't sound alright to me.
            These figures may or may not be correct (I'm allergic to math) but there are an awful lot of atoms in 1 Bq to chop up your DNA :(

            1 year = 365.242199 days

            I-131
            T/ln 2 = 8.02070 day * 86400 s/day / 0.69314718 = 9.99771e5 (1Bq = aprx. 1m atoms)

            Cs-134
            T/ln 2 = (365.242199 x 2.0652) day * 86400 s/day / 0.69314718 = 9.4022403e7 (1Bq = apprx. 94K atoms)

            Cs-137
            T/ln 2 = (365.242199 x 30.1) day * 86400 s/day / 0.69314718 = 1.32226279e8 (1Bq = apprx. loads of atoms)

            PU-239
            T/ln 2 = (365.242199 x 24000) day * 86400 s/day / 0.69314718 = 1.092648496162e12 (1Bq = apprx. loads more atoms)


            Report comment

  • Jebus Jebus

    It is different now, This is the United States of America. It is not Japan. We have laws and a legal system here, although sluggish and cryptic. It would be a good way for the truth to hit the MSM, if a few large corporations were hit with proof that their product has been irradiated or is emitting radiation and it was sold without proper labeling.

    Irradiated Food & Packaging
    Overview

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for regulating the use of irradiation in the treatment of food and food packaging. This authority derives from the 1958 Food Additives Amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
    Irradiated Food & Packaging
    Overview

    (FD&C Act) where Congress explicitly defined a source of radiation as a food additive (Section 201(s) of the FD&C Act). The 1958 Food Additives Amendment also provides that a food is adulterated (that is, it cannot be marketed legally) if it has been irradiated, unless the irradiation is carried out in conformity with a regulation prescribing safe conditions of use (Section 403(a)(7) of the FD&C Act). Thus, FDA regulates the lawful use of irradiation through the food additive petition process, the completion of which results in the promulgation of a regulation published in the Federal Register prescribing the approved use.

    http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodIngredientsPackaging/IrradiatedFoodPackaging/default.htm

    We can fight back!


    Report comment

  • Jebus Jebus

    They are selling seafood with "normal trace levels" of radionuclides and not labeling as such…

    Vital Choice Fish Pass the Test with Flying Colors
    We're the first fishmonger to release radiation results; they show either none, or normal, safe trace levels

    http://newsletter.vitalchoice.com/e_article002394438.cfm?x=bkTcL42,b3HCtP8T,w


    Report comment

    • Jebus Jebus

      My point is not that there are "normal trace levels", but that they just admitted the fact and are not labeling it as such. You, as a consumer, are not being informed of that just admitted fact on the packaging, so that you can make an informed choice, when buying their product, as per the law states…


      Report comment

    • WildTurnip WildTurnip

      Yep, it's cya all the way. From comparing the radiation in their seafoods to bananas, Brazil nuts, coffee, etc., to radionuclides released into the ocean and "and their rapid, extreme dilution in trillions of cubic meters of fast-moving ocean waters."

      Then there's this:

      "The only unsafe radionuclides (radioactive elements) released in significant amounts from the stricken nuclear plant have been Cesium 134, Cesium 137, and Iodine 131."

      I didn't know there were 'safe' radionuclides, did you? And yikes! 6 6oz cans of albacore tuna $44.00.


      Report comment

      • arclight arclight

        hi wild turnip
        heres some more safe isotopes.. the chinese news seems to have cleaned the story of the web?? did try to find it but…?

        heres the exskf breakdown of it

        "China's State Oceanic Administration announced on August 24 that strontium-90 was detected in the firefly squid caught off the coast of Fukushima Prefecture in the amount that was 29 times as high as the marine organisms along the coast of China. Cesium-134, which is normally never detected in the marine organisms along the coast of China, and silver-110m, a gamma-ray emitter, were also detected. "

        http://ex-skf.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/radioactive-strontium-in-firefly-squid.html


        Report comment

      • Bobby1

        Bananas, FDA DILs, dilution blah blah. Same garbage as spewed from the nuke companies.

        "Vital Choice is a trusted source for fast home delivery of the world’s finest wild seafood and organic fare, harvested from healthy, well-managed wild fisheries and farms.

        Leading health and wellness experts endorse Vital Choice as a leading source of pure, healthful, sustainable foods of exceptional quality … including our pioneering omega-3 wild Alaskan salmon oil supplements of rare “whole food” character."

        http://www.vitalchoice.com/shop/pc/viewContent.asp?idpage=2

        Worse than the nuke companies, they pose as a "healthy organic" vendor. And they charge an arm and a leg for radioactive fish.


        Report comment

  • Kevin Kevin

    Gee I cannot imagine any risk at all.

    I mean c'mon Japan is 5000 miles away from our west coast here in Canada.

    Sure Harely Davidsons from Japan are washing up on our coast, but we are going to return it and help restore for its original owner….

    Its pretty clear to me that a Harley is gonna get here faster than a fish right?

    <sarcasm off>

    Harley that "rode a tsunami"

    http://www.theprovince.com/news/dealer+help+return+Harley+Davidson+that+rode+tsunami/6553040/story.html


    Report comment

  • TraderGreg

    Kevin – I am trying to buy Atlantic fish and avoid the Pacific fish. I am not sure if it helps and they can always cheat by mislabeling it. I wouldn't buy Pacific salmon – prefer Atlantic one anyways. Forget Alaska halibut :-( . You can buy online the New Zealand salmon – top class. Eventually everything will get contaminated but at least we can avoid risky food as long as possible.

    California kelp (near Monterey) has traces of Fukushima radioactivity for some time. Probably it is the same off the coast of Canada.


    Report comment

    • Kevin Kevin

      Good points.

      Also beware, many Atlantic Salmon are actually farmed on our coast here in BC, so they are actually PACIFIC Antlatic Salmon.

      AND quite often farmed atlantic salmon, farmed in the Pacific is not labelled as such.


      Report comment

      • aigeezer aigeezer

        As Kevin suggests, be aware that Atlantic salmon is a species name, not a location identifier. The one you buy may have spent its entire life in a farm in the Pacific.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_salmon

        If you find you prefer the flavor of one kind of salmon over another, pay close attention to whether the fish is wild or farmed. Farmed fish are engineered to provide a flavor that many people prefer. They have a very different chemical makeup though.

        "Samples of wild Pacific salmon tested on behalf of CTV News at laboratories in B.C. had eight times more Vitamin D and three times more Vitamin A than farmed Atlantic salmon. The samples of wild salmon were also leaner."

        http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100219/bc_ctv_investigates_food_fish_100219/20100304

        Anything you read about the farmed/wild salmon debate may have been spun by either industry, so you've got to do some homework to figure out what is right for you.

        "The wild Atlantic salmon fishery is commercially dead; after extensive habitat damage and overfishing, wild fish make up only 0.5% of the Atlantic salmon available in world fish markets. The rest are farmed, predominantly from aquaculture in Norway, Chile, Canada, the UK, Faroe Islands, Russia and Tasmania in Australia."


        Report comment

        • HoTaters HoTaters

          They are also fed a diet of feed that often contains dyes to make the flesh look more bright orange, pink, or reddish. A friend "in the know" has cautioned against farmed salmon (some types) because of heavy contamination with pesticide residue.

          I guess the motto is "buyer beware" and know where it is coming from.


          Report comment

    • Wreedles Wreedles

      All the oceans are connected.


      Report comment

  • Kevin Kevin

    I love this "Trace amounts" stuff.

    From on line dictionary

    a. An extremely small amount.
    b. A constituent, such as a chemical compound or element, present in quantities less than a standard limit.

    Does 1 1,000,000th of a gram of plutonium (potentially fatal dose) constitute a trace?

    Or better yet how many 1 1millioniths of a gram of plutonium constitute a trace?

    Methinks a trace of plutonium is a REAL issue. And many traces have been released.


    Report comment

  • TraderGreg

    Yeah – terrible term 'trace'. Now I can work for TEPCO :-) . It is getting very late on the West Coast, time to sleep. Goodnite Kevin!
    Greg


    Report comment

  • Gotham

    Arnie Gundersen recently stated that he would not advise eating any Pacific salmon starting in 2013.

    I guess he said this because he knows that the "eternal return" cycle of salmon takes five years. Salmon that return to Oregon inland waterways are known to travel as far as to Japan in their five year round trip journey.

    So, I believe the Vital Choice results.

    But let's keep an eye out for next years announcement. I bet if the numbers are bad we won't hear a peep.


    Report comment

  • Pallas89juno Pallas89juno

    This story is complete whitewash BS.


    Report comment

  • Cowtipper

    Money's worth more than human life. That's the sad truth.
    Rule number one: DON'T TRUST ANYONE.
    Rule number two: IF IN DOUBT, SEE RULE NUMBER ONE.
    Fukushima has hit a lot of food industries, which of course sucks. But it was an accident. It's not an accident when foodproducers cover up radioactive content in their products to keep their companies alive.
    Of course it sounds great when a company claim that everything is alright, but use your head. Look at the numbers and measurements. Do you think it adds up?
    California raisins is being exported all over the the world, and unless you're completely nuts, you have a pretty good feeling about the true situation there. We're back to rule number one.


    Report comment

  • PhilipUpNorth philipupnorth

    Don't much care what Corp.gov says about the safety of the food supply. I won't be knowingly buying Pacific seafood. I won't be buying anything made or grown in Japan, for that matter, at least for the next 100,000 years or so. They will probably soon be turning decommissioned reactor scrap metal into Toyotas! You got to CYA in this deal. The "Atlantic Salmon" we had for dinner last night was farm raised in Chile. Read the small print. They don't even have to tell you country of origin. Governments ALWAYS side with corporate interests over public safety, since corporations provide ex-government workers with cushy jobs when they leave. Expect only to be lied to by everyone chasing a dollar.


    Report comment

  • dodge

    Acceptable levels always refers to the dilution factor, never to the danger or grossness of what is included. Take corn for example, there is a standard for #2 corn, it is what the market price is based on. It takes exceptional corn – to reach #1, and they never grade and market #3, it is the job of the industry to blend and achieve number 2 levels. The grower is "docked" for chaff, for light test weight, for foreign matter, for damaged (spoiled) grain. This is then blended into better corn, rises to grade and is marketed as #2… There will never be a "problem with seafood" as long as there is enough good – safe food to balance the dangerous. Then it is only a matter of risk — am I likely to eat contaminated fish every time? Will my body process the C 134 or will this on pass quickly? Will this damage something critical to my health or just linger? Until major time passes and the numbers of damaged people grow, it is all acceptable risk. Most lightning strikes fall harmlessly to the ground, still parents don't allow their children to play outside in the storm. The difficulty with the seafood is we just can't tell what we have just purchased.


    Report comment

    • ion jean ion jean

      I love the lightning analogy, dodge, it fits perfectly!

      My dilemma: do I continue to warn family, friends, neighbors with the Number One U.S. Mental Health affliction…short attention span…about how important it's become to eat local (east coast) or move to S. Amer. If U can afford it, and continue to risk the reputation of my sanity???

      If I plop down a stack of photocopied articles in front of them to back up my assertions, they soon drift off to: well enjoy life while you can; why haven't I heard this on the nightly network news (which opens a three hour discussion in another direction); oh, I don't wanna see that shit, I've got my own problems, or, best of all: oh!


      Report comment

      • truthseek truthseek

        Ion jean, exactly my sentiment. People just do not want to be bothered by it. This topic is one people (almost understandably) are in denial over…


        Report comment

        • HoTaters HoTaters

          Yes, got only only response to sending out info. on the perils of what would happen if SPF #4 collapses. And that response came from a friend who is already closely following all of this.

          "Leave me alone, I'm trying to sleep!" OK, since you insist, I'll leave you to your fluoride dream state.


          Report comment

    • NoPrevarication NoPrevarication

      @Dodge

      Hmmm, Maybe grade #3 is the corn used in making rotgut liquor? :>)


      Report comment

  • OhioBoy

    Trace amounts…..negligible readings….perfectly safe…Aha…
    You can always trust your govt. Just ask any Native American Indian.


    Report comment

    • ion jean ion jean

      With a scant 9 percent approval rating, you'd think Congress and the rest of the governcorp know by now they are NOT trusted and most people hear what they say and believe something opposite anyway.


      Report comment

  • selfsovereign

    Hi EVERYONE,
    Here's my e-mail to the seafood cowards whom cherry-pick their radiation results so they can keep the profits coming………..GGGRRR!

    "Imediately email us with the FULL results of your radio-isotope testing. ALSO, include the discription of the type of geiger counter used. WE ALL(!!!) want to know EXACTLY which fish were hot, with EXACTLY which and ALL isotopes detected(I-129,Pu-239?!), AND which fish were not.
    For every three parts I-131, there is one part I-129!!!!!!!
    I-129 has a half life of 15 million YEARS!!!!!!!!!
    Uranium-238 enriches to neptunium-239 and then decays to PLUTONIUM-239 that has a HALF-life of 22,400 years!
    Your declarative statement that radiation levels were "safe" is comprehensively oxymoronical, as YOU NEVER DIFFERENTIATE FROM INTERNAL EXPOSURE AND EXTERNAL EXPOSURE. A-Priori, you demonstarate a complete lack of understanding of radio-isotope incorporation into bones, tissue and organs, where they continue to irradiate you, non-stop, for the rest of the little childrens lives whom eat your radioactive food. It's really quite simple and straightforward. Do the right thing, care more for the children than YOU DO YOUR WALLET!!!!!
    Try reading 'The Plutonium Files -Eileen Welsome' and you will KNOW how clandestine testing done by YOUR government has established 0.5 Micrograms of Plutonium to be FATAL!!!!
    Seriously, WTF?!!
    YOU started this, now RELEASE THE FILES!
    All of them……….<next post…..>


    Report comment

  • alpha-tracker

    The fission yield for cesium-137 is 6.15 percent and for strontium-90 is 5.77 percent. (This is for thermal-neutron fission in uranium-235.) For arguments sake, we have basically the same amount of strontium-90 in a fuel rod as cesium-137. The reason we see Fukushima-to-blame levels in the environment of cs-137 that are thousands or millions of times higher than (known and revealed) sr-90 levels is because cs-137 is more volatile – meaning it vaporizes more easily. But when subjected to immense water 'rinsing' from cooling operations, sr-90 will leave the fuel rods *as easily as* cs-137 – both are water soluble. Since strontium-90 is likely hundreds of times more radiotoxic than cesium-134/137, strontium-90 (and still to an extent strontium-89) in Pacific seafood should a major, major concern to us all, for the same reason sr-90 was a concern to milk-drinking Americans in the 1950s. Strontium-90 builds into the bone and teeth – the young are the most vulnerable – think leukemia. It also is a beta-emitter. It can cause beta radiation burns, like the types of external injuries seen in marine species (walrus, seal and polar bears).


    Report comment

  • Sickputer

    Nuclearcrimes.org has some nice Fukushima updates including one about the seafood testing mentioned in this thread:

    http://www.nuclearcrimes.org/fukushimaupdates.php

    Excerpt: "It is incorrect to say that the cesium-134 levels in Vital Choice products are safe. As we assert in our advisory, there is no safe level of radiation in food. Furthermore, since the laboratory contracted by the fishmonger wasn't asked to look for strontium-89 or strontium-90 or plutonium, there is NO CERTAINTY THAT VITAL CHOICE – OR OTHER U.S.-CAUGHT – SEAFOOD IS FREE OF THESE OTHER SIGNIFICANTLY DANGEROUS RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINANTS. Hundred of radionuclides from Fukushima were released from the meltdowns by air and by sea, and most of these radiotoxins will REMAIN detectable in the Pacific waters for years as they accumulate in the marine food chain environment (including species like salmon). Levels of cesium-137 in the tens of picocuries per kilogram in common American foods were typical of the worst-fallout years of the Cold War – the mid-1960s. Several scientists – among them Linus Pauling, a two-time Nobel Laureate – have estimated that millions of cancers and genetic defects will result in the long-term from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing fallout."

    "…both the FDA and the EPA missed a 'hotspot' of Fukushima-contaminated food found by the State of Kansas in mid-2011.Over a week, a child would consume enough radioactive iodine to be well above federal 'levels of concern"


    Report comment

  • HoTaters HoTaters

    Related subject — Consumer Watch article on the irradiation of food:

    http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/IrradiationCom1-24-05.pdf


    Report comment

  • el

    Ah. So long, already struggling Fishing Industry on the Oregon Coast. It was fun while it lasted……


    Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.