Radioactive bluefin tuna crossed the Pacific to US

[n2doc]

Source: AP/SF Gate

Across the vast Pacific, the mighty bluefin tuna carried radioactive contamination that leaked from Japan's crippled nuclear plant to the shores of the United States 6,000 miles away — the first time a huge migrating fish has been shown to carry radioactivity such a distance.

"We were frankly kind of startled," said Nicholas Fisher, one of the researchers reporting the findings online Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The levels of radioactive cesium were 10 times higher than the amount measured in tuna off the California coast in previous years. But even so, that's still far below safe-to-eat limits set by the U.S. and Japanese governments.

Previously, smaller fish and plankton were found with elevated levels of radiation in Japanese waters after a magnitude-9 earthquake in March 2011 triggered a tsunami that badly damaged the Fukushima Dai-ichi reactors.




Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/05/28/national/a120114D60.DTL&tsp=1

[awoke_in_2003]

1. "We were frankly kind of startled,"

then you're frankly kind of stupid. K&R

[Baitball Blogger]

10. +1

[Catherina]

37. Fish can swim long distances. Who knew? n/t

[Sabriel]

2. "Startled" isn't quite the word I'm feeling here.

Try "seriously disturbed" or "borderline freaked out."

So much for verifying the origin of the fish I eat. Pretty soon, it won't matter where it came from.

[indivisibleman]

6. I asked an expert on Pacific fish

if I should be concerned about pacific fish from California, Alaska etc and he said oh no. Not to worry about. That was about 6 months ago. This is really no surprise to me. But the good news is that they are still safe to eat. Hmmmm, I wonder if Food Network has some tasty recipes for radioactive fish.

[Sabriel]

7. "Tuna...it comes pre-cooked!" n/t

[indivisibleman]

54. good one, I'll use that.

[JDPriestly]

16. It's safe to eat how much tuna?

Seems to me that the radioactivity will collect in your body. One fish might be OK. But if one radioactive fish has come this way, I suspect many more will follow.

I'm skeptical.

Our government has been known to lie to us -- more than once.

[indivisibleman]

55. exactly.

I'm thinking I may just avoid tuna all together. We have noticed gulf shrimp arriving here looking pretty ratty. Not going to eat that either.

[Autumn]

3. startled?? This is a researcher??

I'm startled that he is so fucking stupid.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

8. The article and his quote is edited

Quite frankly, I'd like to know what exactly he is startled by......it doesn't say and the problem with the media is they don't like to be bothered with details

If you're an expert on marine biology or oceanography......by all means I'd like to hear your thoughts as to what makes him so fucking stupid when we don't really know what he was commenting on.

[Autumn]

12. Here's a clue.

"That's a big ocean. To swim across it and still retain these radionuclides is pretty amazing," Fisher said.

Try reading the article. And have a nice day.

[Liberty Belle]

4. So what's that do for the deep-sea fishing businesses and the tuna fleets off the west coast?

As if worrying about mercury poisoning wasn't bad enough, now this. What happens to all the wildlife that eats fish -- birds, sharks, bears....and to all of us who used to be told fish was healthy for us?

We already contaminated the Gulf of Mexico with BP oil - most shrimp comes from there.

I suppose salmon off Alaska will be next, now that tsunami debris is washing up.

Can we just please shut down the nukes everywhere before we kill everything on the planet?

[Nihil]

40. Hopefully the panic will shut down a lot of the fishing fleets due to a lack of demand.

That might give the fish populations a slim chance to recover from the industrial ravaging
that said fleets have been imposing in recent years.

[hunter]

50. Bad enough that we eat everything on the planet...

Why do we eat these magnificent creatures? Because "they taste good" is insufficient reason.

Commercial hunting of most wildlife was banned or severely restricted a long time ago in the U.S.A.

Passenger pigeons are extinct because we ate them and destroyed their natural habitat.

Now the same is happening to ocean species.

It would be a perversely positive development if people stopped eating tuna for fear of radioactive contamination. But this seems unlikely, given that tuna are already contaminated with mercury and other potent toxins humans have dumped in the oceans.

[Gregorian]

5. The second round of testing should be interesting. Cesium is in our foodchain.

I can't believe people weren't thinking these kinds of things would happen when enough of us are all trying to live on this little speck of dust in space. Let's cram another billion on the planet and see where it gets us.

[NickB79]

28. Radioactive cesium has been in the food chain since 1945. nt

[DeSwiss]

9. Surely this report must be some kind of mistake!

Why we've had the assurance of experts! And the NRC! And the President......

“We do not expect harmful levels of radiation to reach the United States, whether it’s the West Coast, Hawaii, Alaska, or U.S. territories in the Pacific. That is the judgment of our Nuclear Regulatory Commission and many other experts. Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and public health experts do not recommend that people in the United States take precautionary measures beyond staying informed. And going forward, we will continue to keep the American people fully updated -- because I believe that you must know what I know as President.”

President Barack Obama

- Now, doesn't that make you feel better???

K&R

[center][/center]

[drokhole]

11. Howard Zinn really nailed it on the head...

"I do not like experts. They are our jailers. I despise experts more than anyone on earth.... They solve nothing! They are servants of whatever system hires them. They perpetuate it. When we are tortured, we shall be tortured by experts. When we are hanged, experts will hang us.... When the world is destroyed, it will be destroyed not by its madmen but by the sanity of its experts and the superior ignorance of its bureaucrats..

We are expected to believe that great thinkers-experts-are objective, that they have no axes to grind and no biases, and that they make pure intellectual judgments. However, the minds of all human beings are powerfully influenced (though not totally bound) by their backgrounds, by whether they are rich or poor, male or female, black or white or Asian, in positions of power, or in lowly circumstances. Even scientists making "scientific" observations know that what they see will be affected by their position.

Why should we cherish "objectivity," as if ideas were innocent, as if they don't serve one interest or another? Surely, we want to be objective if that means telling the truth as we see it, not concealing information that may be embarrassing to our point of view. But we don't want to be objective if it means pretending that ideas don't play a part in the social struggles of our time, that we don't take sides in those struggles.

Indeed, it is impossible to be neutral. In a world already moving in certain directions, where wealth and power are already distributed in certain ways, neutrality means accepting the way things are now. It is a world of clashing interests-war against peace, nationalism against internationalism, equality against greed, and democracy against elitism-and it seems to me both impossible and undesirable to be neutral in those conflicts."

-- Howard Zinn, from Declarations of Independence

[skepticscott]

15. And I'm sure Zinn

would call a plumber if he needed his appendix out, or have his dentist do the inspection on the house he was about to buy, or ask the person who cuts his hair to replace his brakes.

[chervilant]

19. Ironic,

I think, that your sig line is a quote from the much maligned Siggy Freud, and your snark to drokhole completely misses his point.

[skepticscott]

23. My tag line does not rely

on any particular "expertise" by Freud, but is simply what should be a rather self-evident, and ultimately indisputable point (uncomprehended by many), which he managed to express with particular cogency. So your own snark misses the point of it rather badly.

As far as Zinn's point, does he even have one that's worth making? Clearly he recognizes that expertise exists (as my own post was meant to illustrate to anyone who hadn't grasped that from his own quote). So what, then? That some experts speak and act out of less than noble motives, and with less than saint-like honesty? Duh. So do a lot of incompetent and marginally competent people pretending to be experts. In those circumstances where expertise applies, which would he truly rather have giving advice and guidance?

[chervilant]

32. I see the irony escapes you... n/t

[skepticscott]

35. What apparently escapes you and Zinn

Is that no rational person bows to the invented strawman of pure, unadulterated objectivity. Everyone has biases. Again, duh. The strawman is just Zinn's way of attempting to justify a rant that reflects his own. That's the only irony here that some aren't able to grasp.

[chervilant]

41. hmm...

Indeed, it is impossible to be neutral.

Perhaps, you and Zinn have something in common...

[skepticscott]

42. Now the irony escapes you again

despite having it pointed out. Zinn rips into people for not being something that he claims is impossible (apparently because he needs to rant), and then creates a strawman to make it all seem necessary.

So enlighten us all as to what his useful, insightful, meaningful point is.

[chervilant]

45. Wow...

Not really good at this game, are you?

[Peace Patriot]

51. I think Zinn has a point but he didn't make it very well.

"Why should we cherish 'objectivity?,'" he asks. This point is perhaps more applicable to history and other social studies, and to the arts, than to science and engineering. But these fields sometimes overlap. For instance, it was once the "objective" view of male doctors and of many men that women easily became "hysterical" due to their biology, and "hysterectomies" were in fact prescribed (surgical removal of the uterus) as the solution. It never occurred to these men that they might have been driving their women crazy, or that "hysteria" might be a form of protest by people who feel powerless. Nope, it was paraded as "science," as "objective," that uteruses make women "hysterical" (i.e., weak, unreliable, overly emotional, etc.).

What do we think of those "experts" now? Well, I'm glad that their view no longer prevails in our society. Their view was clearly heavily prejudiced by their sex--by their illusions of being superior in mind, in "objectivity," in psychological stability and in other ways, compared to women. I'm also glad doctors, men and society in general AMENDED this view, and headed towards a more objective view (of male/female differences), as new facts, new analysis and new understandings emerged. This, of course, did not occur without struggle--particularly by women. So here we have a plain intersection of a social movement and science. A social movement AMENDED science and steered it toward cleaner objectivity.

Zinn seems to be saying that the social movement is the part of this dynamic that is important. Without the women's social movement, this non-objective view of women, invented by male "experts," quite likely would have continued to be considered "objective" and the medical science would never have been corrected, despite the fact that the men of science "cherished objectivity." What good was their "objectivity"? They couldn't see reality. Also, this "Victorian" view of women--as weak, as "hysterical," as needing men to control them--constantly threatens to return and there are CURRENT male fascist forces at work, right now, to restore this view in our society--and, if that happens, THEY will surely re-invent the medical science to endorse it with.

Zinn seems to me to be trying to elicit this more complete and more profound view that our pursuit of "objectivity" is underpinned with more important pursuits: improvement of humankind, social justice, spread of knowledge, increased happiness. Those male doctors with their sexist medical ideology might have thought--likely thought--that they were improving the lot of women by appealing to reason and science (as opposed to beatings and other brute oppression) to mitigate male behavior toward women. The underpinning motive--to improve humankind--was the key motive in the correction of this very flawed "objectivity" of the "experts." The pressure and struggle and sheer justice of the women's equality movement won the day--changed male minds, because those minds were moved and movable by something deeper than "objectivity." We thus should cherish that other something--the struggle for social justice--not the fleeting "objectivity" of "experts" who claim certitude but don't really possess it.

I think Zinn makes the mistake of ignoring the general trend of the human brain and of humans as individuals and in communities, to seek ever more objective information about the world. If women, for instance, demonstrate their skill in sports, in science, in literature and so forth--first, of course, struggle for those opportunities, and then utilize them to PROVE their equality--or if any other prejudice like this is overturned by the facts, most human beings will eventually respect it, because we value facts and the objective view. This is an inherent quality of the human brain. It is not something we "cherish." It is something we ARE--or, rather, something we SEEK, universally.

I also think that what Zinn really meant to say was, "Don't OVER-cherish it" (objectivity). Don't be fooled by it. Don't be like those male doctors, parading as "experts" and preaching sexism as "objective." Zinn himself has done a great deal to correct the prejudices of history writing. Surely he has a model of objectivity in his mind, against which he is judging the history written by--and full of the prejudices of--the rich and the powerful. His histories have been a corrective, much like the actual equality of women has been a corrective to medical science. Is either view of history the whole truth? No. Are women the same as men in every way? No. Objectivity is somewhere in between or beyond. It is something we seek. It is never achieved.

Physicists are currently struggling with so much strangeness in the composition of matter, and also in the macro-cosmos, that they are really not sure of ANYTHING. The more data they obtain, the more puzzled do they become. If nothing else, this great flux of ideas in physics and cosmology teaches us never to conclude that we have possession of the objective truth. We don't. Not in any science. Not in any field of human thought. The only thing we have are temporary, workable theories that might be entirely exploded tomorrow.

We have to swim in this uncertainty. That is our fate. And that is another thing that I think Zinn was trying to say, and expressed badly--that to rely on "experts" to mollify you with certitudes about the world will not only lead you and society astray, as to what is real, it is a very perilous mistake. Nuclear power "experts" are PAID TO mislead you--to make you feel certain about the safety of a highly profitable and government-looting industry that could, in fact, easily end up destroying all life on earth. We are frequently told the exact opposite of the truth by paid "experts"--including paid "experts" hired to analyze and dismiss the importance of our social movements and protests, and "expert" pollsters to tell us what we think, and "experts" on electronic voting to assure us that the 'TRADE SECRET' code in our voting machines is okay. Indeed, I know of one such official who actually dismissed the concerns of a knowledgeable citizen about these electronic voting machines because "you are not an expert." The ultimate put-down. The ultimate ploy to shut people up. They have eliminated the ordinary citizens who used to count our votes in public view and now "the experts" do it, and tell us to butt out.

Ha!

I totally sympathize with Zinn's contempt for "experts." Show me a real expert who knows what he or she is doing--fixing my plumbing or removing a brain tumor--and I will respect, if not worship, that expertise and the objective knowledge--knowledge of our current workable theories about the world--that they have acquired. But we need to beware of the charlatan "experts" in every field, something house owners know, who have ever been cheated by a contractor, and something that victims of the medical profession know, and something that all of us are getting on to, on many fronts, from economics to war, these days. Many "experts" LIE. And the part of our brains that inherently pursues objective information is the WAY that they embed their lies within us and within our society.

[skepticscott]

52. Well, we "cherish" objectivity

or at least see it as a worthwhile goal, while (hopefully) recognizing that a pure version of it will never be achieved, because it allows (among other things) you and me to judge that the views of those male doctors were NOT particularly objective, or correct. Science and scientists have been wrong about many things for many reasons down through history. The gathering of knowledge is a process rife with human biases and prejudices, but by making it a collective and ongoing enterprise, individual and group biases can gradually be filtered out, leaving improved and useful knowledge behind.

And yes, as I already recognized, some "experts"are less than expert, and some experts misuse their knowledge or their veneer of expertise. In going on at length about this, neither you nor Zinn are revealing anything particularly new. Some experts lie. Some moderately and marginally competent people lie as well. What of it? What alternative do you or Zinn offer? Does this mean we should wish that experts and expertise didn't exist? Or just that we wish people were better and more honest? Or that people should improve their critical thinking skills? Again, duh...but don't hold your breath.

[DeSwiss]

21. I quite agree with Howard....

...in fact, most of the ''co-called experts'' that I've ever met were actually pretty simple-minded and very limited in their scope and understanding of life generally. Many are just jackasses who think they are better than anyone else. I have found that many of them have a narrow unyielding view of the world (with exception to their so-called area of expertise) and believe that this area of their limited knowledge makes them more important than anyone else, or that they somehow understand life or the world better than anyone else does. Truly moronic. What was at one time referred to as a ''idiot savant.''

- But then, that's why we evolved with our very own personal IGNORE buttons. Life is too short to waste on those with such a limited view of reality......

"The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Our morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life. To make this a living force and bring it to clear consciousness is perhaps the foremost task of education. The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action." ~Albert Einstein

[chervilant]

46. hmm...

I suspect wee Skeptic isn't getting your point. He seems to have a strong aversion to Zinn.

Have you read Richard Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays? For me, his is the most cogent and comprehensive discussion of anti-intellectualism.

The basic underpinning of anti-intellectualism is the resentment succored by individuals who conflict hierarchy with their perceived alacrity in intellectual pursuits. In other words, those who consider themselves smarter than (better than?) the vast majority of the Hoi Polloi invite derision.

[Prometheus Bound]

48. That certainly applies to economists.

[NickB79]

25. Actually yes it does, because what Obama said has turned out to be correct

If you'd read the OP's story, it clearly states the fish were still far below cesium levels determined to be unsafe to eat.

These fish are edible under US and Japanese regulations, so that means harmful levels of radiation still haven't reached the US, as your quote says.

[DeSwiss]

30. No thank you, I always try to find tuna without cesium. At any level.

- But you go right ahead and eat all you want since it's ''safe.'' Oh, and btw: whatever you do, don't Goggle these words or images: chernobyl fukishima deformed vegetables people

[NickB79]

31. Good luck with that. Radioactive cesium has been in food since 1945

I'm not saying it's GOOD to have radioactive cesium in our food supply, but realistically we've been living with it and other radioactive elements in food since we detonated the first nuclear bomb. We should strive to ensure our food is as free of radiation as possible, but we should also keep level heads when dealing with situations like this.

[DeSwiss]

33. I'm a boomer. I know this.

I breathed the air in the Midwest in the early 1950's while our brain-dead leaders got their jollies off exploding bomb after bomb in the deserts of the southwest. All the while telling us how each home in the future would have its own nuclear reactor since the electricity would be ''too cheap to meter.'' So far all I got is bladder cancer for my trouble. So far.

Still, to knowingly buy any food that one has already had ''the experts'' say is contaminated with cesium is more than a little too timid. I mean I know we're all scared shitless of this rogue entity that has taken over our country, but to willingly buy poisoned food is a bit too much for me.

- IMHO
[center]




[/center]

[AnotherMcIntosh]

38. As safe as the airport scanning machines?

[randome]

13. I suppose everyone wants to ignore this bit:

"But even so, that's still far below safe-to-eat limits set by the U.S. and Japanese governments."

Less human-caused radioactivity is preferred but it's not dangerous. And yes, it is kind of astonishing that blue-fin tuna could swim all that distance and avoid getting eaten.

[GliderGuider]

43. Panic is always more fun than reason.

It pumps up the adrenal glands and makes us feel powerful and righteous. The only problem our neocortex has is how to dress up the panic in socially acceptable post-hoc justifications.

Radioactive tuna will do quite nicely.

[LanternWaste]

53. lling mere concern a "panic" is wonderfully illustrative of melodrama.

"Panic is always more fun than reason..."

As is melodrama to better trivialize and minimize others who may not share your same opinions-- as I see zero panic, yet a fair amount of concern. And calling mere concern a "panic" is wonderfully illustrative of melodrama.

[jeff47]

47. That interferes with their goal of pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere

Gotta have a nice panic so we can shut down the nuclear plants, and thus ramp up burning of coal and natural gas.

[RobertEarl]

14. Experts will be along soon to tell us...

...that cesium is actually good on Tuna. That it's not much different than spreading mayonnaise. That it cleanses the palate.

And that Tuna carrying cesium is primo stuff.

[chervilant]

20. And, that Tuna

with cesium means you should eat 2-3 bananas a day!

[RobertEarl]

22. Yep

A balanced diet.

Too, the experts will probably have to use up all their creds telling us:
The government that is the biggest nuke customer in the world, and has allowed us to go all global warming and stuff, will be the first to tell us when it IS NOT safe to eat cesium. In other words: Trust Them.

[KoKo]

17. NPR last week had a report that Tuna Harvest was Way Down....this report makes me wonder...

Also...about all our Seafood which we know (oldie DU'ers) from reports for years that the Tuna were being OverFished by Japanese and that Tuna do some Spawning in the Gulf of Mexico...which we know is polluted from BP.

The Tuna in the Gulf would take some research to find if the Japanes Fishing boats were allowed in there for "Years" so. ...that we could separate the Tuna Decline from Japanese Fishing Boats looking for other waters (preferring Oil over Radiation) and I have no idea how folks would manage to get through the Disinformation on this....but, if the Gulf spawns Tuna and there are Japanese allowed in there to fish along with locals...then it must be bad.

Do you want "Toxic Corexant with your Tuna or Radiation....that will mutate in your body.

What a TERRIBLE CHOICE.

I love eating Tuna Sandwiches and had cut back over the years because of the other warnings...but, there's almost NO SEAFOOD I feel comfortable eating these days.

I guess it's up to the Wall Street Bankers to eat Seafood these days and feel comfortable...because THEY only eat what they know is SOURCED and APPROVED.

BranJoLina and the rest get the Good, Clean Seafood and the rest of us are left to eat what hasn't been tested and it's what the MASSES are always given. The "Inferior that could Kill You."

Just like Coal Miners in Appalachia and the folks who eat Monsanto and High Fructose. Some follks WIN and some LOSE.

[tawadi]

26. It's really sad

The Pacific used to have the best fish.

[GliderGuider]

44. The reason fish harvests are falling isn't radiation

It's because we ate them all.

[KoKo]

49. That too...plus oil spills....the radiation is an additional problem up the food chain

which will affect more than fish.

[MsPithy]

18. There is a safe-to-eat level of Cesium? Fucking radioactive CESIUM?

Yeah, right. This is why nuclear power plants are insured by the taxpayers and not the FREE MARKET. Nobody is as gullible and stupid as us taxpayers.

[skepticscott]

24. There's a safe-to-eat level for everything

Why is that such a hard concept for so many people here? Your body is radioactive, and has radioactive cesium in it, as well as any number of other radioactive elements. Does that make you scream in panic?

[NickB79]

27. +1. nt

[hedgehog]

29. Pfft! You young'ns worry too much - why back in the day we

used to get free chest x-rays when we felt like it and there was so much fallout Eastman Kodak had to be careful when it shipped x-ray film from its plant in Rochester, NY! And it din't hurt us none; except for the cancer and thyroid problems and maybe the diabetes!


On a more serious note - if people are afraid to eat the sea food , maybe the fisheries will have a chance to recover!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

39. If you're old enough, you may remember the shoe stores that had x-ray machines to make sure

that the shoes bought for kids would fit.

And some toy company produced a small cardboard tube with a lens that the tykes could look through and see the radiation. If you had one, that could be as impressive as having a microscope.

[suffragette]

34. I wonder what this says about levels in smaller fish, squid etc eaten there and along the journey

Fisher seems surprised mainly that the radiation was retained:

From the article in OP:
Bluefin tuna absorbed radioactive cesium from swimming in contaminated waters and feeding on contaminated prey such as krill and squid, the scientists said. As the predators made the journey east, they shed some of the radiation through metabolism and as they grew larger. Even so, they weren't able to completely flush out all the contamination from their system.

"That's a big ocean. To swim across it and still retain these radionuclides is pretty amazing," Fisher said.




Fisher was already aware of radiation in fish found in Japanese testing.

Here's some info on that in a Canadian article:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=cache:ixccf6OW04AJ:http://www.vancouversun.com/news/After%2BFukushima%2Bfish%2Btales/5994237/story.html%2BJapan+exported+%2476+million+of+food+products+to+Canada+in+2010&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&ct=clnk

In November, 18 per cent of cod exceeded a new radiation ceiling for food to be implemented in Japan in April – along with 21 per cent of eel, 22 per cent of sole and 33 per cent of seaweed.

Overall, one in five of the 1,100 catches tested in November exceeded the new ceiling of 100 becquerels per kilogram. (Canada’s ceiling for radiation in food is much higher: 1,000 becquerels per kilo.)

“I would probably be hesitant to eat a lot of those fish,” said Nicholas Fisher, a marine sciences professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.

Fisher is researching how radiation from Fukushima is affecting the Pacific fishery. “There has been virtually zero monitoring and research on this,” he said, calling on other governments to do more radiation tests on the ocean’s marine life.




Glad he is conducting and calling for more testing.

[Poll_Blind]

36. At least DUer Robdogbucky and I called it 9 months ago: (LINKS)

HERE

And DUer robdogbucky hit the nail on the head a day before me, and used bluefin tuna as the example.

Who the fuck is "startled"? I call BULLLLLLLLSHIT!

PB