Message Boards » Food and Nutrition

TOPIC: All tuna tested in California show positive for radiation

 
Ic_disabled_photos
Topic has been inactive for 30 days or more and images have been disabled.
Display All Images
August 23, 2013 7:01 AM
Radioactive contamination from the Fukishima reactor disaster in Japan in showing up in 100% of tuna tested in California.

http://intellihub.com/2013/05/29/absolutely-every-one-bluefin-tuna-tested-in-california-waters-contaminated-with-fukushima-radiation/
  26937202
August 23, 2013 7:17 AM
Yes... I've been keeping tabs on this.. scary what the government hides from us.. I mean.. it's only our health right? Why should be be informed... smh...
  32744076
August 23, 2013 7:28 AM
Damnit. I like tuna. ._.
August 23, 2013 7:28 AM
I'll just put this down here in case people don't want to freak out just yet.
Fukushima tuna study finds minuscule health risks
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/03/us/fukushima-tuna

From the article:
Levels of radioactivity found in Pacific bluefin tuna that spawned off Japan around the time of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident are far below anything that would pose a health risk and have dropped in fish caught the following year, U.S. researchers reported Monday.

The results were released Monday by the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Even subsistence fishermen, who eat far more fish than the typical American, would receive a dose of radiation from the cesium isotopes released in the meltdown equivalent to a single dental X-ray, Fisher and his colleagues reported. That translates to a "worst-case scenario" of two additional cancer deaths for every 10 million people in that category
  33786070
August 23, 2013 7:36 AM
Bear in mind that this is only slightly above background radiation (3% accoridng to the link). The statement that there is "no safe level of radiation", while technically true, is sensationalist. We've been exposing nuclear workers to 2 to 3 REM a year for over 30 years with no significant increase in cancer risk for those workers. People freak out over radiation fears because they don't really understand that a small increase in a very tiny risk is still a very tiny risk. An additional 1 person in 5 million getting cancer is insignificant compared to the risk from all sorts of "safe" activities. You pick up more radiation than that just by flying (at higher elevations, there is less natural shielding, so you pick up larger doses of background radiation than at the surface).
  33268440
August 23, 2013 7:37 AM
In for Friday morning scare mongering.

3% above background? No "safe" level of radiation? Seriously? yawn
August 23, 2013 7:41 AM
Minute traces of radiation is not going to hurt you, having a smart phone plastered to your skull for half of you're existence like most of the western world introduces FAR more radiation to your system than any tuna sandwich ever will. That article is nothing more than environmental busybodies run-amok. Move on with your lives.

Rigger
  46599677
August 23, 2013 7:45 AM
QUOTE:

In for Friday morning scare mongering.

3% above background? No "safe" level of radiation? Seriously? yawn


This.
Honestly, radioactivity is natural. There is radioactivity everywhere.
And if I turn into a mutant than I'll probably grow awesome muscles or turn into spiderman or something. Not complaining about that either.
  45867192
August 23, 2013 7:46 AM
It's okay, guys, I did some research and here's some things to avoid because radiation:

--Doctor's visits and the subsequent medical procedures
--Wireless technology and cell phones
--Food
--Water
--The sun


brb, tuna for lunch.
August 23, 2013 7:46 AM
QUOTE:

Minute traces of radiation is not going to hurt you, having a smart phone plastered to your skull for half of you're existence like most of the western world introduces FAR more radiation to your system than any tuna sandwich ever will. That article is nothing more than environmental busybodies run-amok. Move on with your lives.

Rigger


I'm an environmental busybody who believes in safe levels of radiation! Don't lump me with the wackos pls.
  45867192
August 23, 2013 7:47 AM
QUOTE:

Bear in mind that this is only slightly above background radiation (3% accoridng to the link). The statement that there is "no safe level of radiation", while technically true, is sensationalist. We've been exposing nuclear workers to 2 to 3 REM a year for over 30 years with no significant increase in cancer risk for those workers. People freak out over radiation fears because they don't really understand that a small increase in a very tiny risk is still a very tiny risk. An additional 1 person in 5 million getting cancer is insignificant compared to the risk from all sorts of "safe" activities. You pick up more radiation than that just by flying (at higher elevations, there is less natural shielding, so you pick up larger doses of background radiation than at the surface).

God forbid anyone ever needs an xray...
  3535168
August 23, 2013 7:49 AM
Soooo. If I eat California Tuna I might become Tuna-man... worst hero ever.
  12242157
August 23, 2013 7:51 AM
QUOTE:

Soooo. If I eat California Tuna I might become Tuna-man... worst hero ever.


Solid third post. I lold
  45867192
August 23, 2013 7:55 AM
QUOTE:

Soooo. If I eat California Tuna I might become Tuna-man... worst hero ever.


Oh I don't know, Kikko Man is pretty cool.
Image not displayed
  33786070
August 23, 2013 8:03 AM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

Minute traces of radiation is not going to hurt you, having a smart phone plastered to your skull for half of you're existence like most of the western world introduces FAR more radiation to your system than any tuna sandwich ever will. That article is nothing more than environmental busybodies run-amok. Move on with your lives.

Rigger


I'm an environmental busybody who believes in safe levels of radiation! Don't lump me with the wackos pls.


We're all wacko to some degree in the eyes of others, but if you're a busybody, and you're secure enough with that to announce it, you get lumped in in my book, sorry. Kudos for not buying the radiation hype though.

Rigger
  46599677
August 23, 2013 8:08 AM
Damn, better stop eating my tuna fish and banana sandwiches. I might grow an extra limb!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose
August 23, 2013 8:12 AM
When it comes to radiation, it is all about dosage.
  33173465
August 23, 2013 8:19 AM
Hooray! A reason for people to stop eating an endangered species! Kind of sad that we need one...

(Though, as rjmudlax said, it is all about dosage)
  12045982
August 23, 2013 8:20 AM
Lord help you if you are eating that tuna on a granite counter top.
  4579652
August 23, 2013 8:21 AM
I need radiations levels in the fish, estimated exposure from consuming them, and the hazard associated with those exposure levels before I bat an eyelash...
August 23, 2013 8:28 AM
QUOTE:

Soooo. If I eat California Tuna I might become Tuna-man... worst hero ever.


You can scare away enemies with your smell!
August 23, 2013 9:10 AM
ya know.. it's all "conspiracy and fear mongering" until the "out of control spillage of radiation into the ocean" (which is not my words or that of the press) really does reach level that are deemed unsafe by the government. I personally think any level of radioactive material that is introduced into my food source is unsafe. Ever see Erin Brockovich? (yes i know that's spelled wrong) That is a true story and exactly what this *could* or perhaps *is* turning into. Unfortunately it will take years before any adverse side affects surface and longer that that to link them to this incident.

This is not the first leak.. They have been leaking since the tsunami so for 2 years radioactive water has been leaking into the ocean. The most recent one result in radiation level above what is deemed "safe".

I don't care if you personally believe it or not or if you care or not. The point is.. this bad thing is happening. It is bad. It isn't healthy for us to be exposed to radiation. And they are downplaying it. The government isn't telling us the whole story. The government is neglecting it's duty to tell us and it has big potential to affect human health.

Just because i felt like posting more information.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/08/130807-fukushima-radioactive-water-leak/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23779561
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/21/us-japan-fukushima-severity-idUSBRE97K02B20130821
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/21/world/asia/japan-nuclear-leak-warning
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23776345


Man made sources of radiation is responsible for doubling our exposure to it to just under what the government deems safe (ironic huh?)
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html

So what if I *do* live in Colorado, so I already get more natural radiation. Now I eat fish and am exposed to other man made radioactive things.. i'm over the safe level almost daily.. Now what if the government didn't tell me my fish was contaminated? (which they aren't btw) and I get sick.

Little doses may not harm us (we don't really know though) but lots of them add up quickly. It's like gmo.. a small amount of the chemical and such won't hurt us (in theory).. but that small amount in each item we eat adds up to over the safe level. Same concept, different issue. (not trying to start that battle, just for comparison).


PS.. leak control done right..http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/item/58922-leak-forces-shut-down-at-south-jersey-nuclear-power-plant-?linktype=all_feedtop they told on themselves and shut it down.
Edited by Confuzzled4ever On August 23, 2013 9:44 AM
  32744076
August 24, 2013 4:40 PM
QUOTE:

Hooray! A reason for people to stop eating an endangered species! Kind of sad that we need one...

(Though, as rjmudlax said, it is all about dosage)


Bluefin Tuna are not endangered.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/science/earth/28tuna.html?_r=0

That being said, their stock is being dangerously overharvested, but that is not the same as "endangered."

As for the OP, as others have pointed out, the dosage matters here. I wouldn't worry about radiation poisoning from any fish items you eat in the U.S.
Edited by DragonSquatter On August 24, 2013 4:41 PM
August 24, 2013 4:44 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:



Bluefin Tuna are not endangered.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/science/earth/28tuna.html?_r=0

That being said, their stock is being dangerously overharvested, but that is not the same as "endangered."

As for the OP, as others have pointed out, the dosage matters here. I wouldn't worry about radiation poisoning from any fish items you eat in the U.S.


After your scientific post yesterday, I thought of you on this one. Glad to see you commented.
  34141127

Reply

Message Boards » Food and Nutrition

Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy.