Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sundowner on May 29, 2012, 05:40:29 PM
-
Thank goodness! :rolleyes:
Check please! :bolt:
Regards,
Sun
Radioactive tuna from Japan swam the Pacific to U.S.
LOS ANGELES — 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.
But scientists did not expect the nuclear fallout to linger in huge fish that sail the world, because such fish can metabolize and shed radioactive substances.
One of the largest and speediest fish, Pacific bluefin tuna can grow to 10feet and weigh more than 1,000 pounds. They spawn off the Japan coast and swim east at breakneck speed to school in waters off California and the tip of Baja California, Mexico.
Five months after the Fukushima disaster, Fisher of Stony Brook University in New York and a team decided to test Pacific bluefin that were caught off the coast of San Diego. To their surprise, tissue samples from all 15 tuna captured contained levels of two radioactive substances -- ceisum-134 and cesium-137 -- that were higher than in previous catches.
To rule out the possibility that the radiation was carried by ocean currents or deposited in the sea through the atmosphere, the team also analyzed yellowfin tuna, found in the eastern Pacific, and bluefin that migrated to Southern California before the nuclear crisis. They found no trace of cesium-134 and only background levels of cesium-137 left over from nuclear-weapons testing in the 1960s.
The results "are unequivocal. Fukushima was the source," said Ken Buesseler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, who had no role in the research.
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 systems.
"That's a big ocean. To swim across it and still retain these radionuclides is pretty amazing," Fisher said.
Pacific bluefin tuna are prized in Japan where a thin slice of the tender red meat prepared as sushi can fetch $24 per piece at top Tokyo restaurants. Japanese consume 80 percent of the world's Pacific and Atlantic bluefin tuna.
The real test of how radioactivity affects tuna populations comes this summer when researchers plan to repeat the study with a larger number of samples.
http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Nation/World/2012-05-29-PNI0529wir-radioactive-tuna_ST_U.htm?csp=34
-
Ill eat it without worry
-
"Hon, lets go for sushi tonight"
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/rad-det.jpg)
-
It is less radioactive than a banana.
Seriously.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/hot-tuna-bluefins-carry-fukushima-isotopes-across-the-pacific/
The levels were well below safety limits set by Japan, and the radioactivity caused by the cesium was about 30 times below that caused naturally by radioactive potassium. So, the tuna don't present a health threat to anyone involved.
-
It's pre-cooked for a longer shelf life.
-
Yellowfin is damn good. :rock
-
Im sure 10 times the amount of cesnium, then was in the fish before, is still just swell. Cant have the Tuna industry taking the hit so lets spin it.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xc52xx_kraftwerk-radioactivity-high-qualit_music
Heck of a concert BTW. I saw them once.
-
What else are they going to say? I personally cant eait until I develop super powers from eating sushi. :banana:
-
My fish do glow in the dark. :D
-
Sushi :rofl
Raw fish cannot be good for you and if you say it is your silly :old:
Sushi was invented because they were so poor they could not cook it :rofl
Anyone ever ate a raw chicken :rofl
-
Thank goodness! :rolleyes:
Check please! :bolt:
Regards,
Sun
Radioactive tuna from Japan swam the Pacific to U.S.
LOS ANGELES — 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.
But scientists did not expect the nuclear fallout to linger in huge fish that sail the world, because such fish can metabolize and shed radioactive substances.
One of the largest and speediest fish, Pacific bluefin tuna can grow to 10feet and weigh more than 1,000 pounds. They spawn off the Japan coast and swim east at breakneck speed to school in waters off California and the tip of Baja California, Mexico.
Five months after the Fukushima disaster, Fisher of Stony Brook University in New York and a team decided to test Pacific bluefin that were caught off the coast of San Diego. To their surprise, tissue samples from all 15 tuna captured contained levels of two radioactive substances -- ceisum-134 and cesium-137 -- that were higher than in previous catches.
To rule out the possibility that the radiation was carried by ocean currents or deposited in the sea through the atmosphere, the team also analyzed yellowfin tuna, found in the eastern Pacific, and bluefin that migrated to Southern California before the nuclear crisis. They found no trace of cesium-134 and only background levels of cesium-137 left over from nuclear-weapons testing in the 1960s.
The results "are unequivocal. Fukushima was the source," said Ken Buesseler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, who had no role in the research.
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 systems.
"That's a big ocean. To swim across it and still retain these radionuclides is pretty amazing," Fisher said.
Pacific bluefin tuna are prized in Japan where a thin slice of the tender red meat prepared as sushi can fetch $24 per piece at top Tokyo restaurants. Japanese consume 80 percent of the world's Pacific and Atlantic bluefin tuna.
The real test of how radioactivity affects tuna populations comes this summer when researchers plan to repeat the study with a larger number of samples.
http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Nation/World/2012-05-29-PNI0529wir-radioactive-tuna_ST_U.htm?csp=34
Sundowner, your news sources never cease to amaze me.
Keep in mind, not all fish tested positive and not all tested as high..... that said....
Very strange.... the story I heard said they had about 2-dozen tunas total in their sampleing.
1/30 = 0.0333 So fish exposed to the Fukushima "Disaster" are now 3% more radioctive than their natural nominal level of radioactivity. 103% of an already ludicrously small and safe level. :rolleyes:
Their still recovering from a 9.0 earthquake, and all you have to live for is trolling here over 3%. :aok
-
where does the 1/30 come from?
-
They use metal from sucken battleships at Scapa Flow in medical scanners etc because they are clear of radioactive elements pre 1945 :old:
-
Tuna!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3973tfsllqw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3973tfsllqw)
-
Sundowner, your news sources never cease to amaze me.
Keep in mind, not all fish tested positive and not all tested as high..... that said....
Very strange.... the story I heard said they had about 2-dozen tunas total in their sampleing.
1/30 = 0.0333 So fish exposed to the Fukushima "Disaster" are now 3% more radioctive than their natural nominal level of radioactivity. 103% of an already ludicrously small and safe level. :rolleyes:
Their still recovering from a 9.0 earthquake, and all you have to live for is trolling here over 3%. :aok
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/039/080/5008_9c00_420.gif?1318992465)
-
where does the 1/30 come from?
News article I read in regards to this same story... *dig* *dig*
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/05/30/153925233/nuclear-tuna-is-hot-news-but-not-because-its-going-to-make-you-sick
<snip>
So the question is, how much more radiation did these particular tuna fish contain? The answer is: A trivial amount. In fact, radiation from the cesium is 30 times less than the radiation that's already in the fish naturally in the form of potassium-40, according to the research paper. And the natural polonium-210 packs a radiation dose 200 times larger than the dose from the cesium.
<snip>
It really is a great article imho, talks about how it isn't a threat and how scientists are looking to make use of it in helping understand/research the ocean.
And so to be clear, this is a "trace amount". Know what else is still found and classified in trace amounts, today in all sea life (and for as long as most of us have lived and enjoyed a meal of fish n chips)? Cesium-137 (the nukes set off during the testing in the 50s and 60s)
-
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/039/080/5008_9c00_420.gif?1318992465)
3/10
+9 for the picture
-6 for a missed and oportune grammar nazi interjection (they're)
-
ok ty :aok
-
3/10
+9 for the picture
-6 for a missed and oportune grammar nazi interjection (they're)
:bhead
-
I wont be worried until I see this
(http://www.vanessarodrigues.com/image/Blinky.gif)
-
Sundowner, your news sources never cease to amaze me.
USA Today is an amazing (questionable) news source? :headscratch:
Keep in mind, not all fish tested positive and not all tested as high..... that said....
Very strange.... the story I heard said they had about 2-dozen tunas total in their sampleing.
1/30 = 0.0333 So fish exposed to the Fukushima "Disaster" are now 3% more radioctive than their natural nominal level of radioactivity. 103% of an already ludicrously small and safe level. :rolleyes:
I see your point and respect your opinion. My stance is I prefer not to consume any additional ceisum-134 and cesium-137 if I can help it. :) I hope you can respect MY opinion as well.
Their still recovering from a 9.0 earthquake, and all you have to live for is trolling here over 3%. :aok
If my post came across to you as a troll I apologize for my poor communication skills.
I must however disagree with the "all you have to live for is trolling here over 3%" observation.
I checked my post history and found the vast majority is not "trolling here over 3%". (Wheh! what a relief!)
It is likely counterproductive to abuse the poster if you disagree with his opinion.
We could probably have a more lively/civil conversation if we concentrated more on the topic of the post. (And yes, I now find myself off topic. --sorry :()
Thanks.
Regards,
Sun
-
Well Ive been eating great Lakes fish all my life. First as a kid pedaling down to the lakefront for perch, then older with my own boat trolling for trout and salmon. http://youtu.be/rfrDq3SVvkU
Ive been dealing with the health warnings and trying to educate people on them thru all my years with Salmon Unlimited. The health warning for great Lakes contanimants are taken from "samples of the entire fish" with most of the bad stuff, PCBs, Mercury,...ect being in the skin, guts, and belly fat of the fish. Now let me ask this? Who in their right mind eats skin, belly fat, or fish guts and Heads? The Chinese maybe but not an American with his trolling boat.
So properly cleaned and prepared the salmon and trout are perfectly safe to eat. Much of whats left is further reduced by the cooking process. If I were a pregnant woman I'd probably lay off the larger fish, like the King I caught in the video. Or even more so the large Lake trout. But Lake Trout was my fave to eat and Im still around. The steelhead spend their lives high in the water column and are the safest and the coho are also very safe to eat.
Im just wondering exactly where in the Tuna they found this material and if consumers would even eat it in the first place. Fish advisories tend to be delivered by the save the whales, and "I love trees" crowd and can be kinda skewed to support a particular philosophy. Im all for saving the envirement but want actual facts put out in a realistic way.
-
Well Ive been eating great Lakes fish all my life. First as a kid pedaling down to the lakefront for perch, then older with my own boat trolling for trout and salmon. http://youtu.be/rfrDq3SVvkU
Ive been dealing with the health warnings and trying to educate people on them thru all my years with Salmon Unlimited. The health warning for great Lakes contanimants are taken from "samples of the entire fish" with most of the bad stuff, PCBs, Mercury,...ect being in the skin, guts, and belly fat of the fish. Now let me ask this? Who in their right mind eats skin, belly fat, or fish guts and Heads? The Chinese maybe but not an American with his trolling boat.
So properly cleaned and prepared the salmon and trout are perfectly safe to eat. Much of whats left is further reduced by the cooking process. If I were a pregnant woman I'd probably lay off the larger fish, like the King I caught in the video. Or even more so the large Lake trout. But Lake Trout was my fave to eat and Im still around. The steelhead spend their lives high in the water column and are the safest and the coho are also very safe to eat.
Im just wondering exactly where in the Tuna they found this material and if consumers would even eat it in the first place. Fish advisories tend to be delivered by the save the whales, and "I love trees" crowd and can be kinda skewed to support a particular philosophy. Im all for saving the envirement but want actual facts put out in a realistic way.
Very cool, and that's something I honestly never thought about but makes a lot of sence, pollutants would concentrate themselves in higher or less concentrations throughout the entire fish, depending on the region and it's risk of exposure.
I just find it too ironic for simple coincidence, Sundowner. 0.3% or 30% - you eat anything from any media outlet about any nuclear related topic, and imediatley relay it here. 99% of the time such a topic/issue/subject isn't being featured on the 7-Oclock news, your presence and participation in our community is, perspectively, non-existant.
It's not that I'm pro or con nuclear either (I've honestly always been on the fence - it's good if used responcibley, but how often is everyone responcible that should be?), I'm just partially intollerant of over-hyped media-sensationalism, guiltless spreading of missinformation, and boys crying wolf.
-
Who in their right mind eats skin, belly fat, or fish guts and Heads?
I do! guts aside, the rest are are what makes fish stock :) as for cooking reducing the concentration, if you boil it maybe, otherwise it should only get more concentrated.
as a sensible precaution make sure you drink plenty of red wine ;)
-
I havent seen my fav brand of pilchards for ages until recently (Glenryke, red tin) and couldnt work out why. since the atlantic is full of em and particularly around the british coast I always assumed they were atlantic pilchards.
turns out they are pacific pilchards and canned in thailand, so I guess the combination of the thai sunami disrupting production and the japanese reactor disaster explains it. I tried some and they are nowhere near as good as they were, but apart from that common sense tells me to avoid anything from the sea in this part of the world when theres more local alternatives.
-
I'll never really understand the hostility toward nuclear power. Over the past 50 years it's built a track record that proves it to be objectively and undeniably the safest form of power per KWh energy produced, it's certainly one of the greener forms of generating electricity, and it really works, and has worked for years, instead of just being a pipe dream.
Granted I do have a different perspective being a central Pennsylvania resident, when I can drive 5 minutes toward Harrisburg and see the site of one of the worst nuclear 'disasters' (in which no one was killed) in the history of civilian power happily chugging away and providing the region with power, while only a little while away we have a town that had to be evacuated and is still uninhabitable due to a coal mining accident.
Even at Chernobyl the loss of life was miniscule compared to those lost every year due to coal mining accidents and illness related to the conditions in coal mines, to say nothing of any other form of energy, or the pollution it releases into the environment. I guess as a Pennsylvania resident I guess I also have a different perspective on this, with Lake Erie being so famously polluted and devoid of life due to pollution (granted it's not so bad any more), while the Susquehanna river, which Three Mile Island sits on, is still a popular spot for fishing and water sports etc..
Though I'm not a fan of doing anything with that water, it's pretty nasty for reasons that have nothing to do with TMI
-
....I tried some and they are nowhere near as good as they were, but apart from that common sense tells me to avoid anything from the sea in this part of the world when theres more local alternatives.
Good for you!
It sometimes seems that common sense just isn't that common anymore.
Regards,
Sun
-
Not sure why the scientist is surprised. Tuna, although not the fattiest fish, does have fat, and can and will store anything it eats in some quantities. This does include heavy metals and radioactive isotopes. Fish can metabolize this crap, yes, but just like humans, if they have an abundance of food, they will not shed it immediately, and will store it.
Aside from that, who wants to go on a fishing trip next to Bikini Atoll? I hear glowing reviews about its fishery :rofl
No one? :frown:
Aww... :(