Radiation Levels in Tuna Tripled After Fukushima!

Fish caught off the coast of Oregon have tested positive for radiation and the researchers that discovered this say Fukushima is to blame. An Oregon State University (OSU) research project found that radiation in albacore tuna has been steadily increasing ever since the nuclear disaster back in 2011, with average radiation levels now triple what they were before the consecutive meltdowns.

A team led by graduate research assistant Delvan Neville first began collecting tuna samples back in 2011 and ever since, has been collecting more to make comparisons. Based on what they observed, levels of radioactive cesium in the fish have increased by roughly 300 percent since the project first began, a direct result of radioactive bioaccumulation in the fish over time.

Published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, the results of the study demonstrate a lingering effect from the Fukushima disaster that the mainstream media has largely downplayed. Though still relatively minute, the radiation levels detected in albacore tuna add to the many other sources of exposure from other foods, as well as from air and seawater.

"You can't say there is absolutely zero risk because any radiation is assumed to carry at least some small risk," admitted Neville, who works in the OSU Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health Physics.

Neville insists that the levels detected in the fish are so small that a person receives more exposure from other normal activities like sleeping next to another person, for instance, as humans emit radiation from the natural potassium-40 inside their bodies. But once again, this assumption fails to take into account the effects of concentrated doses of ingested ionizing radiation, which can have profound health effects.

According to the researchers, radiation was detected in all areas of the tuna's bodies, including in the loins, carcass and guts. Older fish were also determined to have higher levels of the damaging radionuclides than younger fish, suggesting that the older fish may have traveled across the Pacific Ocean and back several times, each time exposing themselves to more radiation.

Still, many of the three-year-old fish tested had no traces of Fukushima radiation at all, which some may see as reassuring. The researchers also pointed out that once albacore tuna reach the age of about five, they stop their trans-Pacific migrations and head south to warmer waters, never to return to the West Coast of the U.S.

"The presence of these radioactive isotopes is actually helping us in an odd way -- giving us information that will allow us to estimate how albacore tuna migrate between our West Coast and Japan," added Neville. "Fukushima provides the only known source for a specific isotope that shows up in the albacore, so it gives us an unexpected fingerprint that allows us to learn more about the migration."

Radioactive water from Fukushima will be 10 times stronger when it reaches US, say scientists
At the same time, other scientists are worried about the continued drift of radioactive water coming from Fukushima, some of which is expected to impact the West Coast. Scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the GEOMAR Research Center for Marine Geosciences warned earlier this year that when radioactive currents finally reach our shores, it will not be pretty.

A study published recently in the journal Science China Earth Sciences predicts that "pockets and streams of highly concentrated radiation" will soon hit the West Coast, covering the entire North Pacific and stretching as far south as Baja, California, in Mexico. This same study also anticipates that these elevated radiation levels will persist for at least a decade.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/045132_Tuna_Fukushima_radiation.html#ixzz34Pm...

 Filed under: Researchers

2 Comments

bluesbaby5050: Fukushima Radiation Now Detected In The U.S. Food Supply!

Scores of experts and analysts have feared for months that it would happen, and now it has: Radiation from the heavily damaged nuclear power plants at Japan's Fukushima complex has made it into the seafood chain off the coast of America.

Small amounts of cesium-137 and cesium-134, both radioactive elements released after a major earthquake-caused tsunami damaged at least three reactors at the site along Japan's northeastern coast in March 2011, have been found in at least 15 tuna that were recently caught off the coast of California, scientists have said.

The finding suggests that the fish may have carried the contamination across the Pacific Ocean faster than wind or water has been able to do, and months earlier than wind and water brought debris from the damaged nuclear plant across the ocean to the shores of Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, said Reuters.

Researchers said that, so far, the levels of cesium found in the fish are not high enough to harm humans if consumed, according to data published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

'Not a large amount at all'
Daniel Madigan of Stanford University's Hopkins Marine Station did not make a determination about the safety of the fish, though he did say the amounts of radiation detected in the tuna are far less than Japan's safety limit.

"I wouldn't tell anyone what's safe to eat or what's not safe to eat," Madigan told Reuters. "It's become clear that some people feel that any amount of radioactivity, in their minds, is bad and they'd like to avoid it. But compared to what's there naturally [...] and what's established as safety limits, it's not a large amount at all."

Madigan said researchers found higher levels of two radioactive isotopes of the cesium element, 137 - which was present in the eastern Pacific before the disaster at Fukushima Daiichi - and 134, which is caused only by manmade activities and wasn't present before the tsunami smashed into the plant.

Since cesium 134 only exists through human activity, such as nuclear power plants and the manufacture of nuclear weapons, Madigan's team figured the 134 they were measuring had to have come from Fukushima.

"There was about five times the background amount of cesium 137 in the bluefin tuna they tested, but that is still a tiny quantity, Madigan said: 5 becquerels instead of 1 becquerel (It takes 37 billion becquerels to equal 1 curie; for context, a pound of uranium-238 has 0.00015 curies of radioactivity, so one becquerel would be a truly miniscule proportion)," Reuters reported.

Not much contamination, but how much is too much?
Bluefin tuna only spawn in the western Pacific, off the coasts of the Philippines and Japan. The researchers believe that the elevated radioactive isotopes came from Fukushima because of the way the tuna migrate across the Pacific Ocean. As young fish, some of them tend to migrate off the coast of California, and then remain there as they grow.

Judging by the size of the tuna examined (about 15 pounds), researchers believe the fish left the waters off Japan about a month after the accident.

Most of the radiation from the damaged plant was released only for a few days in April 2011. Unlike some other compounds, radioactive cesium doesn't sink quickly but instead remains spread out from the ocean's surface to the seafloor. That means fish can swim through it and ingest it through their gills, researchers said, or by either taking in contaminated sea water or contaminated organisms.

Madigan said bluefin tuna off Japan's coast soon after the accident probably had much higher levels of cesium 134 present in their bodies, perhaps as much as 40-50 percent more than normal.

Still, the fact that any radioactive contamination has showed up off the nation's coastline at all should be cause of concern because, as Madigan himself noted, it's hard to say what levels of contamination in our food are ultimately dangerous enough to cause harm.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036022_Fukushima_radiation_food_supply.html#i...

bluesbaby5050: FDA Taking Another Look at Mercury in Seafood..........

The Food and Drug Administration is updating its advice for pregnant women on the appropriate levels of mercury in seafood. Commissioner Margaret Hamburg says the agency won't require mercury labels on seafood packages.

In a wide-ranging interview Friday with The Associated Press, Hamburg said the agency will update guidance on mercury in different varieties of seafood and what that means, a long-awaited move aimed at helping women better understand what to eat when they're pregnant.

"It's an advisory, not an effort to mandate labeling," Hamburg said. "Different seafood products do contain different levels of mercury, and so different seafood products can be rated in terms of levels of mercury."

Eating fish is part of a heart-healthy diet, and many types are good sources of omega-3 fatty acids that are important for brain development.

But fish also can absorb small amounts of mercury, a neurotoxin, from streams and oceans — and a small number of varieties harbor higher levels.

For most people, accumulating mercury from eating seafood isn't a health risk. But for a decade, the FDA has warned that pregnant women, those who may become pregnant, and young children avoid certain types of high-mercury fish because of concern that too much could harm a developing brain.

Consumer groups have sued the agency, saying the warnings weren't clear enough about what to avoid, and seeking labeling to help so that shoppers wouldn't have to remember which products are OK during pregnancy or for youngsters.

"We can't ask consumers to memorize two different lists of fish," said Caroline Smith DeWaal of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, one of the groups that sued.

DeWaal said the new advisory will be an improvement if it gives consumers better information, especially if that information could be kept at fish counters in grocery stores and retail outlets.

The seafood industry says the government shouldn't look at mercury by itself, but at the benefits of seafood. Jennifer McGuire of the National Fisheries Institute says the original FDA guidelines warning against some types of fish for pregnant women just served to decrease overall seafood intake.

"That would be very concerning if there was a 'good fish, bad fish' list," she said.

The government's 2010 Dietary Guidelines incorporated FDA's warnings to say that pregnant or breastfeeding women should consume 8 to 12 ounces of a variety of seafood per week. But it said they should not eat tilefish, shark, swordfish and king mackerel because of the mercury content and it advised limiting white albacore tuna to six ounces a week.

On other food-related issues, Hamburg said deciding which businesses will have to post calorie labels has been "one of the more complex undertakings of my tenure as FDA commissioner."

The food industry is closely watching FDA to see which establishments are included in final menu labeling rules, which are expected this year. Congress required the labels in 2010 health overhaul, and supermarkets and convenience stores have lobbied aggressively since then to be excluded. But the restaurant industry says that all establishments serving prepared foods should have to post the labels.
She said the increasing amount of caffeine in a whole range of foods "has gotten our attention and concern" and that the agency needs to better understand the role of the stimulant in non-traditional products, especially on children. She said the science is not absolutely clear about its effects.

The agency is investigating the safety of energy drinks and energy shots, prompted by consumer reports of illness and death. FDA is also looking at caffeine in food as manufacturers have added caffeine to candy, nuts and other snack foods in recent years.

On genetically modified foods, Hamburg reiterated her support for voluntary labels, and said a "considerable amount of scientific study" does not suggest the kinds of public health concerns that some consumers have worried about. Advocates for GM labeling have been pushing state laws that require the labels.

As such, she says she does not believe FDA should have to do a mandatory safety review of all engineered foods. FDA now reviews the safety of GM animals, but has a voluntary review for companies that want to sell modified crops for consumption.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/fda-taking-mercury-seafood-23940542

You must be logged in to comment

Site Statistics

Posts
48,602
Comments
31,952
Members
26,150