Reuters: Fukushima radiation seen in tuna off California

[kpete]

Fukushima radiation seen in tuna off California
By Deborah Zabarenko
WASHINGTON | Mon May 28, 2012 3:16pm EDT

(Reuters) - Low levels of nuclear radiation from the tsunami-damaged Fukushima power plant have turned up in bluefin tuna off the California coast, suggesting that these fish carried radioactive compounds across the Pacific Ocean faster than wind or water can.

Small amounts of cesium-137 and cesium-134 were detected in 15 tuna caught near San Diego in August 2011, about four months after these chemicals were released into the water off Japan's east coast, scientists reported on Monday.

That is months earlier than wind and water currents brought debris from the plant to waters off Alaska and the U.S. Pacific Northwest.

The amount of radioactive cesium in the fish is not thought to be damaging to people if consumed, the researchers said in a study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

..................

Fuckishima Blue Tuna in California. MOVE ALONG NOW!!!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/28/us-japan-nuclear-tuna-idUSBRE84R0MF20120528

[RobertEarl]

1. What?

I heard the problem of Fukushima was just "local".

You mean they are big fat liars? Telling lies while cheerleading for nukes?

Are there people like that, still? How do they get away with those lies?

[FBaggins]

4. Do you still have all your fingers?

You'll only need one of them to count the activity from cesium (one becquerel) of a four ounce serving of this salmon.

By comparison, you would need the fingers and toes of your 500 closest friends to represent the becquerel count in your own body right now.

So no, "they" weren't lying. Anyone who told you that you had anything to worry about from Fukushima was the one who lied to you.

[RobertEarl]

5. Really?

Nothing to worry about from Fukushima?

Is that what you are saying? Try to answer the question: Yes, or No.

[FBaggins]

7. For someone in western NC?

Yes, there isn't a thing to worry about.

[RobertEarl]

10. As long as I stay here?

And don't eat tuna. And don't listen to the experts who are saying that "it ain't over yet, there could be more to come" and just listen to you, someone who has been wrong so many times already, then yeah.

Why should i listen to you? Are you an expert?

You do know that Fukushima is not just a local thing, right? That radioactive materials made it to NC already, which means it made it all over the world, right?

[FBaggins]

11. No... as long as you don't move to Fukushima and enter the reactors without gear.

And don't listen to the experts who are saying that "it ain't over yet, there could be more to come"

Such a statement pretty much removes the possibility that the speaker is an "expert".

You do know that Fukushima is not just a local thing, right? That radioactive materials made it to NC already, which means it made it all over the world, right?

Your statements don't add up to a logical whole. As you've been told clearly multiple times, the amount of radiation really does matter. I know you're plugging your ears/eyes/mouth and pretending that "natural" radiation is safe while "manmade" radiation in any amount is dangerous... that simply isn't true. You'vr also been told that the amount we can detect is many MANY times lower than the amount that becomes relevant. Yes, some radiation has traveled around the world... but that doesn't change the fact that Fukushima is very much a "local" thing (from a radiation impact on health standpoint).

Why should i listen to you?

Because you've given in to irrational fears with no basis in reality and it makes you look pretty silly (in precisely the same way that chemtrail/tinfoil/etc types do).

[RobertEarl]

14. I alerted on your post 5-1 leave it.

trying to tie me in with chemtrails and the like makes you look silly.

I am an environmentalist. According to the non-experts like you, the world as a whole can keep taking cesium and all the rest of the radioactive materials being spread and there is nothing to worry about.

And you are wrong.

You are even wrong here calling the report about "salmon" when it is about tuna. Geez.

[FBaggins]

21. I'm surprised you got one.

Obviously you didn't learn from it.

trying to tie me in with chemtrails and the like makes you look silly.

I didn't "tie you in"... you did. Your ongoing proclamations that conspiracy theorists are "scientists" while the real scientists are actually lying to us (along with state/federal governments and international bodies), along with implications that health is endangered all around the world (and this latest nonsense that we should care about single-digit becquerel readings and to imply otherwise is a lie)...

... all add up to precisely the same thing as those (or "WTC was taken down by explosives" or HAARP weather control).

According to the non-experts like you, the world as a whole can keep taking cesium and all the rest of the radioactive materials being spread and there is nothing to worry about.

If you were limited to posts that avoided strawmen or entirely invented facts, you might not have any posts left.

You are even wrong here calling the report about "salmon" when it is about tuna. Geez.

Congratulations! I would have hated to see you get to 700 posts without getting something right.

[RobertEarl]

29. Let's make this clear

A nuke expert, Jimmy Carter, was the man most responsible for putting a lid on the nuke industry. Carter was a very wise man, indeed.

As for the two sides now existing as concerns nukes there are the environmentalist anti-nukes and the nuke industry. Guess which one has the most money? Guess which one develops the 'science' that says radiation is good for you?

Guess which one has very little money? Guess which one is concerned most about the environment and people over profits?

Ok.... now we see from where and how nuke 'science' takes shape. The big money.

You have charged that i am in with the conspiracy people. Here's a conspiracy for you: Who is it that has been fighting against limits on CO2 deposition in the atmosphere? Why, it is the big energy folks.

Now, guess who also owns the nuke plants? Well, I'll be... the same people who own the coal plants. The same people that have been fighting against limiting CO2 are the very same people who own most of the nukes!!

Surprise, surprise. The same people who have been telling us that CO2 in the atmosphere is ok, are the same people who have been telling us radiation released from their nuke plants is ok.

Now..... which side are you arguing for? Jimmy Carter's and the environmentalists, or big coal plant owners?

You label me as a conspiracy type while your whole basis is with the liars and cheats who brought us global warming.

Let's see you address that.

[FBaggins]

31. That was supposed to be "clear"?

Some fictional claims added to doubling down on some of the conspiracy nonsense?

A nuke expert, Jimmy Carter, was the man most responsible for putting a lid on the nuke industry.

Was he indeed? Are you old enough to remember Carter? He was, in fact, a supporter of nuclear power... not an opponent.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=7316#axzz1wJE8j8bC

You have charged that i am in with the conspiracy people. Here's a conspiracy for you: Who is it that has been fighting against limits on CO2 deposition in the atmosphere? Why, it is the big energy folks.
... Now, guess who also owns the nuke plants? Well, I'll be... the same people who own the coal plants.

Yes, that has very much the same flavor as the conspiracy theories. The reality is that the nuclear power industry strongly supports carbon limits and taxes. The coal industry strongly opposes them. It's simply false to lump them into the same category "big energy". Those largest energy companies also own high percentages of the large wind/solar plants... but we can just ignore that, right? News for you... the people who sell and build the nuclear plants aren't the same people. The people pushing for new SMRs to replace coal plants are obviously not the same people who support coal.

[RobertEarl]

32. Same owners

The same people who lied to us about coal and CO2 are pretty much the same owners of the Nuke plants. And so who can trust them when they tell us that the radiation from nukes is safe?

They lied then and they lie now.

[FBaggins]

33. You once again dance past your errors, eh?

Just not fair of me to point them out, is it? Going to hide that nonsense about Carter now?

And repeating a poor argument doesn't make it any less feeble.

Coal and nuclear interests are opposed to one another. The fact that large power companies own all kinds of generation sources doesn't change that.

And so who can trust them when they tell us that the radiation from nukes is safe?

Again with the conspiracy threories? The people telling you that radiation from nukes in general isn't dangerous are not just "large power companies". The people who tell you, for instance, that 10 Bq/kg in fish presents nothing to worry about include world health organizations, federal and state experts, university researchers, professional organizations (health physics, etc).

Oh I know... they're all in the clutches of big energy, right?

[RobertEarl]

34. Well heck

Ya got me their. Yep, the states and fed and universities have been yelling for years about global warming. And they are stopping it cold!

No, wait, it's getting hotter. And they ain't doing nothing about it.


Not saying it's a conspiracy. Saying they have been bribed.

[Thegonagle]

6. You've been lied to. The Japanese government recently admitted as much.

[FBaggins]

9. Can you link to this admission?

I assure you... anyone who tells you that there is any reason to be concerned about 10 Bq/kg in salmon is the one who is lying to you.

[cthulu2016]

2. A reminder about radioactivity

Radiation itself flies off at the speed of light, and radiation does not make other things radioactive.

When we say radioactivity, we mean radioactive material... matter that is emitting radiation.

As in, "suggesting that these fish carried radioactive compounds across the Pacific Ocean faster than wind or water can."

It is the material (from the plant itself) that is radioactive. Since it only takes a tiny bit to be hazardous, the tiny bits of radioactive matter from a plant or bomb can be dangerous.

For instance, all radioactive fallout from a nuclear bomb is material that was in the bomb itself. (Blown up very fine and dispersed around.) When a bomb the size of a trash can makes a city uninhabitable it is due to matter that was all in the trash can-sized bomb being dispersed in particles over a wide area.

In Hiroshima all the radiation from the explosion was gone in less than a second. The fallout is all radiation in tiny particles that is not yet released, and is then released over time.

Just a science reminder. It does not increase or decrease the very real dangers of radioactive material, just identifies how radioactivity gets around.

[RobertEarl]

3. Good info

When Fukushima blew up particles went flying. Some went high into the atmosphere and remain there. Some have come down to earth either in rain or by gravity.

As for the tuna they became contaminated when they swam through the water that was formerly used to cool down the reactors. That melting fuel also melted the steel containment structure resulting in the contaminated water flowing freely off into the Pacific.

Not only that but the water that was then sprayed on the 3 melting reactors made its way to the Pacific where the tuna ingested it.

[MineralMan]

8. It's not surprising. Bluefin tuna are apex predators, and

they travel long distances. The fish they eat have eaten other fish, which have eaten plankton, etc. Each step concentrates contaminants. That's why tuna has more mercury in it than do sardines.

I don't think anyone has claimed that Fukushima would not produce contamination. Ever. It will and it did and it does. Measuring that contamination and reporting on it is a responsible thing to do. It is up to people to decide whether the tiny amounts of cesium in these Pacific bluefins poses a risk they wish to avoid. Personally, I'm more concerned with the mercury in tuna than these levels of cesium. But that's just me.

Nothing is being hidden. It's being reported. Fukushima happened. We need to track the contamination it caused. Then we have information we can use to make decisions.

Nuclear power generation is not safe. It has never been safe and cannot be made to be safe. That said, we have nuclear power plants all over the world. Information about them, especially when problems occur is crucial. Understanding what that information means is even more crucial.

[RobertEarl]

12. Nothing is being hidden?

This report is from August of 2011. For 9 months it was hidden. Or did you know about it before now?

[MineralMan]

26. The fish were caught in August 2011.

When were they tested? That's not in the story. Do you know?

[RobertEarl]

30. Good question: no answer

I'd also like to know what other Fukushima products that have been found in the tuna. Like strontium and iodine.

Will we have to wait another 9 months before that is unhidden?

Realizing that any time the truth is told about Fukushima, people get concerned, makes it clear why they would have an interest in keeping science from us as long as they can. It could be bad for profits, otherwise.

[stevenleser]

13. 5 Becquerels is a miniscule amt of radiation. Human body has 4400 Becquerels from decaying potassium

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

The becquerel (symbol Bq) (pronounced: 'be-kə-rel) is the SI-derived unit of radioactivity. One Bq is defined as the activity of a quantity of radioactive material in which one nucleus decays per second. The Bq unit is therefore equivalent to an inverse second, s?1. The becquerel is named for Henri Becquerel, who shared a Nobel Prize with Pierre and Marie Curie in 1903 for their work in discovering radioactivity.

In a fixed mass of radioactive material, the number of becquerels changes with time. Therefore, a sample radioactive decay rate is stated with a timestamp for short-lived isotopes, sometimes after adjustment to some specific date of interest (in the past or in the future). For example, one might quote a ten-day adjusted figure, that is, the amount of radioactivity that will still be present ten days in the future. This can de-emphasize short-lived isotopes.[citation needed] The average human body has 4400 becquerels from decaying potassium-40, which is a naturally-occurring isotope of potassium.

[RobertEarl]

15. So, all radiation is the same?

You seem like an expert.

Does the radiation from plutonium-238 have the same effect as radiation from potassium-40?

[stevenleser]

17. Yes, 5 Becquerels from one source is the same as 5 Becquerels from another

It's such a small amount it is insignificant. We dont even need to discuss whether the source is a Alpha, beta or gamma emitter.
The OP didnt ask to convert between different amounts and different sources, it simply said there was measured to be 5 Becquerels of radiation in the Tuna.

I would eat that Tuna and not have a second thought.

When you the radiation level rises to a million Becquerels, then start to worry that this is going somewhere.

[RobertEarl]

18. So they say

So why do they make bombs with plutonium and not potassium?

[stevenleser]

19. Has to do with which one is more fissionable, not more radioactive.

Substances that are ideal for fission tend to emit a lot of high energy neutrons. These neutrons in turn can split additional atoms that themselves emit more neutrons. This is known as a chain reaction.

It would be a mistake to suggest that because a substance is more fissionable than another that it is more dangerous in terms of radiation.

On Edit: Here is a good wiki on Fissionable materials. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fissile

[RobertEarl]

20. OK

Say you have a handful of potassium and a handful of cesium-134?


Which one will mess you up first?

On edit:strike plutonium. inserted cesium-134

[FBaggins]

22. They aren't equally radioactive.

One has a half life about 500 million times longer.

[RobertEarl]

23. Cesium and Potassium from wikipedia

Cesium: The isotopes 134 and 137 (present in the biosphere in small amounts from radiation leaks) represent a radioactivity burden which varies depending on location. Radiocaesium does not accumulate in the body as effectively as many other fission products (such as radioiodine and radiostrontium). As with other alkali metals, radiocaesium washes out of the body relatively quickly in sweat and urine. However, radiocaesium follows potassium and tends to accumulate in plant tissues, including fruits and vegetables.

<snip>

Experiments with dogs showed that a single dose of 3.8 millicuries (140 MBq, 4.1 ?g of caesium-137) per kilogram is lethal within three weeks;[105] smaller amounts may cause infertility and cancer.[106] The International Atomic Energy Agency and other sources have warned that radioactive materials, such as caesium-137, could be used in radiological dispersion devices, or "dirty bombs".

Potassium ions are necessary for the function of all living cells. Potassium ion diffusion is a key mechanism in nerve transmission, and potassium depletion in animals, including humans, results in various cardiac dysfunctions. Potassium is found in especially high concentrations within plant cells, and in a mixed diet it is mostly concentrated in fruits.

Potassium is natural and it is found in our food, naturally.

Cesium is deadly.

[FBaggins]

28. Polonium 214 and 218 are perfectly natural isotopes.

Both are dramatically more radioactive than Cesium. And yes, you inhale it all the time. The amount is relevant whether you're willing to recognize it or not.

Experiments with dogs showed that a single dose of 3.8 millicuries (140 MBq, 4.1 ?g of caesium-137) per kilogram is lethal within three weeks

Do you understand what the capital "M" is in "MBq"?

This is 14 million times the cesium activity level found in the fish.

[Zanzoobar]

16. Pre-cooked Tuna!

Mmmmm Mmmm!

[fascisthunter]

24. gets worse by the day

well, at least we can read about it all after-the-fact!

[raouldukelives]

25. Mmmm. I'll try the Ann Coulter Special please!

It tastes great and it fights cancer!

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. And this is surprising exactly how to the people at Reuters?

We call it bioconcentration...