Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: 150,000 SQ.KM of Pacific with Fukushima nuclear material - ‘Remarkable’ amount released in ocean [View all]FBaggins
(28,741 posts)39. That's a big "IF"
if there's an uptick due to Fukushima that's showing up in Pacific Fisheries, as someone who eats a lot of fish from the Pacific, I'd like to know about it.
There hasn't been such an uptick. I don't think there have been any fish with Strontium from Fukushima caught outside of the area close to the plant where fishing is not allowed (apart from research).
For instance - Here's a recent report of a fish caught near Fukushima. It contained about 200Bq/kg of Cesium and just under 2Bq/kg of Strontium. That's roughly in line with background levels of Strontium that are found in fish around the world (left over from weapons testing and Chernobyl).
It's also useful to keep in mind that Strontium is a "bone seeker" in fish as well... and you probably don't eat fish bones. So even if 2 Bq/kg were a concern (it isn't)... you still wouldn't have anything to worry about - and that's a fish caugt off Fukushima (where they can't sell the fish)... not somwhere that could end up on your plate.
You have far more to worry about from mercury in fish than Fukurads.
http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/03/1-8-bqkg-of-strontium-90-measured-from-rainbow-smelt-in-minamisoma-city-fukushima/
Not because I'm all freaky-outy over any amount of radioactive material, but because I'd like to imagine the FDA and EPA are paying attention.
They have been. The place where imagination is actually required it to pretend that they haven't been.
There hasn't been such an uptick. I don't think there have been any fish with Strontium from Fukushima caught outside of the area close to the plant where fishing is not allowed (apart from research).
For instance - Here's a recent report of a fish caught near Fukushima. It contained about 200Bq/kg of Cesium and just under 2Bq/kg of Strontium. That's roughly in line with background levels of Strontium that are found in fish around the world (left over from weapons testing and Chernobyl).
It's also useful to keep in mind that Strontium is a "bone seeker" in fish as well... and you probably don't eat fish bones. So even if 2 Bq/kg were a concern (it isn't)... you still wouldn't have anything to worry about - and that's a fish caugt off Fukushima (where they can't sell the fish)... not somwhere that could end up on your plate.
You have far more to worry about from mercury in fish than Fukurads.
http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/03/1-8-bqkg-of-strontium-90-measured-from-rainbow-smelt-in-minamisoma-city-fukushima/
Not because I'm all freaky-outy over any amount of radioactive material, but because I'd like to imagine the FDA and EPA are paying attention.
They have been. The place where imagination is actually required it to pretend that they haven't been.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
89 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
150,000 SQ.KM of Pacific with Fukushima nuclear material - ‘Remarkable’ amount released in ocean [View all]
DeSwiss
Apr 2013
OP
Gee, it'd be nice if it wasn't up to independent researchers to pay attention to this stuff.
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2013
#2
Really? So where's the data on radioactive isotopes in, say, Pacific fish caught for sale in the US?
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2013
#12
Exactly. The EPA isn't measuring it. The FDA isn't measuring it. My point exactly.
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2013
#15
If you've actually read what I've written, I'm not "predisposed to think" anything.
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2013
#22
what's the recommended level of excess radiation exposure above natural background?
CreekDog
Apr 2013
#25
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” ~George Orwell nt
DeSwiss
Apr 2013
#55
Is your mission in life to knock me for wondering about the stupidity of atomic power?
Octafish
Apr 2013
#58
You're not saying that you're responsible for the interpretation of the video, are you?
FBaggins
Apr 2013
#63
Really? Look at the map and see for yourself where the sea surface temperatures are highest.
Octafish
Apr 2013
#72