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)

Published: May 29th, 2012 at 5:33 pm ET


How Fukushima May Show Up in Your Sushi
ABC News
May 29, 2012

Dr. Michael Harbut, director of the Environmental Cancer Program at Wayne State University’s Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit


“In general, when you hear the word ‘radiation’ at all, it’s cause for some alarm, and I agree always a cause for significant attention.”

Harbut, who described himself as a physician, scientist and “guy who likes sushi,” added that while the levels of radiation found should not be seen as a direct threat to human health, scientists should focus their efforts on how this extra little bit of contamination fits into the bigger picture of food safety.

“For somebody to say this is an immediate threat to large numbers of humans and their health is irresponsible,” Harbut said. “We don’t see people dying left and right all over the West Coast from radiation poisoning. But to say this is nothing to worry about is equally irresponsible, because you have radioactive material ingested by fish, which is in turn being eaten by people.”


Published: May 29th, 2012 at 5:33 pm ET


Related Posts

  1. Palast: I just spoke to doctor in Ukraine, “There’s a tremendous epidemic of thyroid cancer there” — Doctor even has thyroid cancer (VIDEO) March 12, 2012
  2. Officials reveal about 2 Trillion becquerels of Fukushima radioactive material flowed into ocean every month during 2013 — “Deadly strontium” releases now more than double cesium — “Strontium gets into your bones… it changes the equation” (VIDEO) August 29, 2014
  3. Japan Doctor: “Completely beyond comprehension” how huge the contamination of ocean water will be — Fukushima radioactive material poured in landfills to enter sea — It’s spreading over whole world (VIDEO) December 5, 2013
  4. Nuclear Professor: Fish on West Coast found with Fukushima radioactive material — We’re testing fish that are sold at markets to U.S. consumers (AUDIO) February 22, 2014
  5. Professor: Fukushima material to be washing up for years on West Coast — “The fish are going to have some in them” — “People have the right to know what’s there” — “Probably not” enough to worry about January 15, 2014

37 comments to 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)

  • AGreenRoad AGreenRoad

    More about the critters…

    Bird Radiation Studies; Chernobyl, TMI & Fukushima; Via A Green Road Blog

    • arclight arclight

      heres what the report on the us marine environment had to say

      Effects of Radiation from Fukushima Dai-ichi
      on the U.S. Marine Environment
      congress version
      april 2 2012

      "..Are There Implications for U.S. Seafood Safety?
      It does not appear that nuclear contamination of seafood will be a food safety problem for consumers in the United States.
      Among the main reasons are that:
      • damage from the disaster limited seafood production in the affected areas,
      • radioactive material would be diluted before reaching U.S. fishing grounds, and
      • seafood imports from Japan are being examined before entry into the United States.
      According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), because of damage from the earthquake and tsunami to infrastructure, few if any food products are being exported from the
      affected region.
      For example, according to the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Associations, the region’s fishing industry has stopped landing and selling fish.
      Furthermore, a fishing ban has been enforced within a 2- kilometer radius around the damaged nuclear facility…"

      • pacific

        hi arclight, you're amazing, thankyou for the report notes and link.

        i kept wryly wondering if the authors were sincere, when they said fishing has been basically shut down in 'the affected region.' the affected region, between ocean currents, and migratory fish ranges, is unknown but must be, er, large.

        gosh, i wondered, could they really mean for us to believe that fishing has been halted over the whole d*** Pacific?

        and then the punchline, that reference to a 2-kilometer radius around the meltdowns! ho ho ho (it's laugh or cry…)

    • arclight arclight

      "..What Are the Likely Responses If Radiation Is Detected?
      If only low levels of radiation are detected, continued monitoring of the situation will be the likely response. In the unlikely event that higher levels of radiation are detected, measures (e.g., removal of contaminated products from commerce) are to be taken to prevent or minimize human exposure to the contaminated media.
      For background information on radiation and its potential for harm, see CRS Report R41728, The Japanese Nuclear Incident: Technical Aspects, by Jonathan Medalia…"

      i got this

      "Distance: The farther radioactive material travels, the greater the volume of air in which the material disperses, diluting it. "

      after my recent findings i am aware that this breaking up happens alot slower than the nuclear companies would have us believe

      120 km on one report

      450 km live from sizewell b uk got a 3.6 mcSv/h spike on the far side of wales.. its hurridly been covered up noe.. see the post your radiation monitoring thread on the right of this page for evidence of my findings..

      and this

      "..r. One-one-hundred-thousandth of 310 mrem per year is a dose of 0.00310 mrem
      per year. At that rate, it would take 32,258 years to accumulate a dose of 100 mrem; over a 70-
      year lifespan, the cumulative dose at this rate would amount to 0.22 mrem. .."

      no mention of internal emmitters

      "In the United States, radiation exposure as a result of medical practice has increased…

      • arclight arclight

        "…over the past 25 years as a result of the growing use of CT scans and nuclear medicine procedures to diagnose and treat disease. Other manmade sources of radiation account for a relatively small fraction of the U.S. population’s total exposure. Those sources include consumer products (e.g., cigarettes, building materials, appliances); industrial, security, educational, and research activities, including nuclear power generation; and various types of occupational exposure…"

        they forgot to add bananas to the list! )

        and how much is the algorithmic dose worked out ? using the ever accurate but inoperative public mapping systems? hmm?

        more lies and obfuscation here

        and this is what the congress of the usa is shoveled? do they actually believe it??? great copy for the media though/sarc

        • arclight arclight

          please dont forget to add to that list for congress


          more here

          The International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW) campaigns for a ban on the use of uranium in all conventional weapons and weapon systems and for monitoring, health care, compensation and environmental remediation for communities affected by their use.

          peace light and love to all
          i gotta tuna out now gnight 🙂

        • ion jean ion jean

          It's all part of the plan…nuclear medicine was sculpted as the "fall guy" decades ago by the AEC…it was their Mission Statement": to PROMOTE the peaceful uses of nuclear energy…was it really in the hopes of avoiding nuclear holocaust or just to turn a quick profit? Funny that Eisenhower did a 360 on the military industrial complex by the time he left office.

          So now we get tossed a crumb, a little bone…I'm waiting for the rest of the doctors to jump on the bandwagon…unless they work in radiology!!

          Are we dealing with "good ol' boys club" tactics here?? I smell dirty socks!

  • AGreenRoad AGreenRoad

    And then we have the cows… land based tuna

    Fukushima: Hawaii & Arizona Dairy Milk Test Up To 800% Higher Than Safety Limits; via A Green Road Blog

  • AGreenRoad AGreenRoad

    Hopefully people will start getting the idea that this problem is not a LOCAL problem, but a GLOBAL issue… a crisis in fact.

    Anyone wonder why the Big C used to be so RARE?

    Now the cancer rate in the good ol USA is about 50% and rising…

    Remember when it was 1 in 7?

    then it went up to 1 in 3

    now it is 1 in 2

    if you do not die from some other dis-ease…

    Whatever happened to passing over in your sleep, with no dis-eases?

    That way of passing over is extinct, and it used to fairly common.

    Yet, some still claim that we are 'winning' the war on the Big C… and that the cause is unknown…

    Yea right… the ROOT causes are all around us… staring us in the face..

  • Time Is Short Time Is Short

    I guess the good doctor missed the 14,000 people who have died in the US right after 3/11, mostly children:

    And the actual article:

    I find it hard to believe anyone in the "cancer business" could miss this. The information was in a peer-reviewed journal. It doesn't get any more responsible, in terms of accuracy, than this.

    • richard richard

      @TIS. From what I've read, this guy does have cred. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

      If he hasn't been 'compromised' then I think he is someone to listen to. It would be good if someone from enenews, who may live near him and have the skills, made an interview with him. Ask him those questions. He may be prepared to answer.

      "Michael R. Harbut, M.D., M.P.H. is an internationally-known expert in the diagnosis and treatment of environmental and workplace diseases"

      If no one can arrange that interview then I'll call him myself from Oz. Whaddaya reckon?

      Anyway, what this episode has highlighted for me (besides hot tuna) is the need to check up on who is reporting what news. This actual article has some loose ends that I cover here ..

      I'm amatuer, so there could be faults in my interpretations. Just trying to keep it clear.

  • jec jec

    What about all the cancer treatment patients who are already at their highest allowable level of radiation? Who keeps a listing of rads for them? RADIATION..Its not the same for all for adults vs children vs babies vs pregnant women. And especially if you eat fish many times a week..its an accumulation. Is Japan going to PAY for the health damage to people who are eating this contaminated seafood? What about the Pacific Islands? Is anyone checking there? The "no immediate" danger comments by government for internal and external radiation is a fallacy. They have no proof its safe..and lots of proof its NOT!

  • Jake E

    They keep using that phrase “below levels of concern” and it always puzzles me and I wonder… whose concern? Tepco’s executives concern? A cancer doctor’s concern? A university nuclear professor concern? A politician purchased by a nuke industry concern? Or is it the concern of the people who do not make money off the nuke industry but only get poisoned by the nuke industry, like your wife’s new baby concern? Or your neighbor’s playground kids concern? Or the 3,000 Japanese kids with tumors in their thyroids concern? Please tell me whose concern do they mean!

    • alpha-tracker

      Brilliant, Jake E. That is the 1 million dollar question. The government says in plenty of official documents there is no safe level of radiation yet it sets really high radiation thresholds (for intervening and removing tainted items from our store shelves) that they call 'levels of concern.' If it was concern for people, the level would be zero – the safe level. So, the question is – this 'level of concern' is a concern for whom? notes at 'The federal phrase 'level of concern' reflects a sort of compromise (and a twisted one at that). The compromise is that we can't have a threshold level of artificially-produced radiation so low in our foods that it shuts down a whole lot of government nuclear facilities and operations that dump radioactive waste into our air and waterways,… so we are going to have a 'level of concern.''

      • pacific

        a-t, I was *just* reading that nuclear-crimes article last night, thank you for citing it here. great answer to JakeE. +1000

    • Time Is Short Time Is Short

      You mention the 3,000 kids with thyroid tumors. I referenced the 14,000 US citizens in the US that died from Fukushima radiation. I can't find any reports of childhood thyroid tumor rates here in the US. It's somewhere, cancer research organizations live and die on these numbers for contribution campaigns, but nowhere I can find.

      Here's a question. If 14,000 died here, how many more died in Japan that aren't being reported? Even another 14,000 would be bad, with a total of 28,000, mostly children, would be harrowing.

      And this is just the beginning.

  • coouurt

    bigger fish shed radioactivity easily…..LOL! good one guys!

  • kingfish46815

    What more is to be expected from the medical establishment this means full employment for them.

    • Time Is Short Time Is Short

      Actually, no. Once diagnosis is made, there is no treatment. Cancer cocktails and cleanup vans, like in the Netherlands, is our future:

      To save money, people with treatable cancers will be lumped in with the radiation victims, so no treatment expenses. This will cause massive economic failure.

      This is our future.

  • Sickputer

    Speaking of films… Check out this 2009 French documentary on Youtube. 108 minutes and it only showed once at 3 AM on mass media TV. You will see why it was suppressed.

    Nightmare Nuclear Waste" NUKE DUMPING ! (german, english subtitles)

    Well worth the watch. Made in 2009 before Fukushima this film lets you know why we are dead people walking…especially in Europe. I know why Homeland Security and Special Forces need a billion bullets…things are coming apart in the next few years. Amazing segments in this video.

    Thanks to Ayako Oishi for posting this link on Enenews Facebook

    • arclight arclight

      great post sickputer

      one intersting thing though… greenpeace only had 2 nuke dumps oin the pacific… didnt they know about the other 2 onthe other side of the island.. i will try to contact them tommorrow!
      many thanks for bringing that video to light


  • Jake and others, "They keep using that phrase “below levels of concern” and it always puzzles me and I wonder… whose concern?"


    ALARA is an acronym for "as low as reasonably achievable"

    It is really a cost benefit model. So maybe a few hundred kids will develop cancer down the road from eating sushi but it doesn't make sense to close down a fishing and restaurant industry for the sake of a few hundred (thousand?)people. (plus no CSI investigation of why someone gets cancer, see Bill Gates) Therefore while most of us here want to see absolute safeguards, those that make these decisions feel that is not reasonable so they (making the decision for us without fanfare or even our knowledge) decide that the panic true reporting of Fukushima (or any other radio nuclear disaster or accident or incident) would cause even though it would save lives, is not worth the damage to the economy this panic would cause. Because you see kind people any disruption of the economy would hurt you as much as it would hurt them. We are all in this together, right? Catchphrases ; no immediate concern, no immediate health risk, radiation is good for you, below levels of concern, less radiation then smoking,less radiation then whats in a banana, less radiation then a airline flight, sorry all our monitors were broken at that time, look what Jaylo is wearing etc etc.

  • Sharp2197 Sharp2197

    The sun can cause skin cancer, living in a well insulated home in certain parts of the world causes cancer from radon, bananas have radiation, flights expose you to radiation, the background level of radiation is much higher today than it was 50 years ago.

    WHEN will a scientist admit that adding all this and throwing a dose of Fukushima on top is dangerous, after all most of the background has been proven hazardous.

    • Sharp2197 Sharp2197

      I did not even touch on how the medical community is killing us with their tests and"cancer cures"

  • Sickputer

    Gee… Didn't know Starkist Tuna had such passionate defenders as the Nuclear Energy Institute:

    Excerpts: "The report did not conclude that there was any food safety or public health concern related to radiation from tuna of any kind. The trace amount of radiation found in the tuna is less than radiation that is found naturally in the Pacific Ocean from Potassium 40.

    The species of tuna mentioned in the report, Blue Fin tuna, is not used in the canned tuna sold in your local supermarket. In fact, Blue Fin is only served as sushi, and most Americans don’t eat much of it at all. According to the National Fisheries Institute, per capita, Americans only eat a few paper clips worth of Blue Fin Tuna every year."

    SP: oh yeah… In the last year I eat a few paper clips of Japanese sushi whenever I'm feeling a little suicidal. Yummy cesium… Gets that heart muscle twitching!

  • stopnp stopnp

    Hows about that cabon tax? Woo!

  • CaptD CaptD

    Finally a Medical Professional speaks out!

    Why are all the rest being so quiet?
    Maybe we all ought to ask those we know to speak out!

    Who needs or wants ADDITIONAL RADIATION?

  • ML

    At least Dr. Harbut provides a balanced viewpoint on radiation exposure. Fact of the matter is the nuclear industry has distorted information regarding ionizing radiation effects on humans since the 1960s. Amazing that something science brought us, nuclear energy, is so unscientific in its approach that it did not openly look at data. Nuclear proponents have also been ultimately destructive due to proceding to produce nuclear waste with no clear idea how to safely handle it for many thousands of years. They felt sure that we would have a solution by now. They gambled, and were wrong.
    Why aren't doctors trained from day 1 that humans and other living organisms ARE naturally nuclear and survive in a naturally radioactive world. What is a normal radioactive human and normal radioactive food sources? What do these new-to-nature man-made radionuclides do to healthy humans at every age? Why, after 50 years of exposure, doesn't every doctor know this? We could be so much further along in our understanding of our world if nuclear defendents hadn't thwarted honest observations. We could have tests and scans that detected abnormal radioactivity, in particular man-made radionuclides, and we could have shared data on how the body effectively might protect and even rid itself of harmful radionuclides.