HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » More radiation in some Or...

Tue Apr 29, 2014, 11:34 PM

More radiation in some Oregon tuna following Fukushima

Radiation in some albacore tuna caught off the Oregon coast tripled after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear meltdown in Japan, a new study from Oregon State University shows.

Still, those levels were a thousand times lower than the maximum safe level set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

"You can't say there is absolutely zero risk because any radiation is assumed to carry at least some small risk," said the study's lead author, Delvan Neville, a graduate research assistant in OSU's Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health Physics. "But these trace levels are too small to be a realistic concern."

Researchers tested 26 Pacific albacore. Some had been caught between 2008 and the March 2011 tsunami and nuclear accident. Others were caught between the accident and 2012.


6 replies, 711 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 6 replies Author Time Post
Reply More radiation in some Oregon tuna following Fukushima (Original post)
Jesus Malverde Apr 2014 OP
dixiegrrrrl Apr 2014 #1
NYC_SKP Apr 2014 #2
RobertEarl Apr 2014 #3
dixiegrrrrl Apr 2014 #4
FBaggins May 2014 #5
warrior1 May 2014 #6

Response to Jesus Malverde (Original post)

Tue Apr 29, 2014, 11:37 PM

1. what KIND of radiation?

taht is an important point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #1)

Wed Apr 30, 2014, 12:17 AM

2. Cesium 134 and Cesium 137. Full study here:



The Fukushima Daiichi power station released several radionuclides into the Pacific following the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami. A total of 26 Pacific albacore (Thunnus alalunga) caught off the Pacific Northwest U.S. coast between 2008 and 2012 were analyzed for 137Cs and Fukushima-attributed 134Cs. Both 2011 (2 of 2) and several 2012 (10 of 17) edible tissue samples exhibited increased activity concentrations of 137Cs (234–824 mBq/kg of wet weight) and 134Cs (18.2–356 mBq/kg of wet weight). The remaining 2012 samples and all pre-Fukushima (2008–2009) samples possessed lower 137Cs activity concentrations (103–272 mBq/kg of wet weight) with no detectable 134Cs activity. Age, as indicated by fork length, was a strong predictor for both the presence and concentration of 134Cs (p < 0.001). Notably, many migration-aged fish did not exhibit any 134Cs, suggesting that they had not recently migrated near Japan. None of the tested samples would represent a significant change in annual radiation dose if consumed by humans.

Full report: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es500129b

From the article:

They discovered that levels of specific radioactive isotopes did increase after the accident, although by a minute amount.

"A year of eating albacore with these cesium traces is about the same dose of radiation as you get from spending 23 seconds in a stuffy basement from radon gas," Neville said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #2)

Wed Apr 30, 2014, 01:07 AM

3. Radon is short lived


Cesium 137 has a half life of 30 years. That means after 30 years it is half as potent of a toxin. After 60 years is 1/4 as potent. After 120 years it is 1/8 as potent.

So eating tuna can be a very risky proposition. And if it in the fish, it is everywhere. Hopefully life can adapt to these new toxins we humans have introduced to this small world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to RobertEarl (Reply #3)

Wed Apr 30, 2014, 01:18 AM

4. what eats the tuna?

obviously boo-accumulatoln is a factor we need to consider.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to RobertEarl (Reply #3)

Thu May 1, 2014, 12:46 PM

5. A risky proposition?

You state a physical characteristic of Cesium (the half life) and then declare that it is therefore "very risky" to eat?

The highest reading cited was less than 1 extra Bq/kg of cesium. So the most contaminated of those fish would give you a per-serving extra dose of roughly 1/10th of a Bq.

Note that the natural potassium 40 (also a beta emitter most of the time) in that same serving of tuna would be about 400 times greater and even that represents only the tiniest portion of the normal annual dose.

You really think that "life everywhere" needs to "adapt" to that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Jesus Malverde (Original post)

Thu May 1, 2014, 12:49 PM

6. it's also full of mercury

almost all seafood is dangerous to eat.


A study finds that 84% of the world’s fish tested was not safe to eat more than once per month because of mercury poisoning. And 13% of the fish isn’t safe to eat, period. Though honestly, I’m not sure how happy I am eating something that’s so poisonous you can only eat one serving per month.

In the United States the number is better. Though in the US the study only looked at one fish, Alaskan Halibut (which I’ve had, it’s yummy). 43% of Alaskan Halibut was only safe to eat once a month because of its mercury levels.

And in Japan and Uruguay, the study found that “Mercury concentrations in fish from sites in Japan and Uruguay were so high that no consumption is recommended.”


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread