Fri Oct 11, 2013, 01:56 AM
nadinbrzezinski (126,771 posts)
Radioactive Bluefin Tuna Caught Off California Coast
Every bluefin tuna tested in the waters off California has shown to be contaminated with radiation that originated in Fukushima. Every single one.
....blah, blah, blah
Another member of the study group, Marine biologist Nicholas Fisher at Stony Brook University in New York State reported, “We found that absolutely every one of them had comparable concentrations of cesium 134 and cesium 137.â€
http://malibu.patch.com/groups/sharkbytes/p/radioactive-bluefin-tuna-caught-off-california-coast
Here, actual study
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/monteburke/files/2013/02/EST_2013_DJM.pdf
No comment
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023826506If you believe that "No comment", then you don't know nutcase nadin.
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)
Fri Oct 11, 2013, 02:07 AM
2naSalit (2,163 posts)
1. They're Heeeeere!
Duhdunt, duhdunt, duhdunt!
But seriously, I am not surprised really, only that it took so long. It's not a good sign of the times. I'm thinking I'm glad I don't eat seafood anymore and now my thoughts turn to the anadramous fish that we have in my region (salmon and bull trout) since they spend so much time in the Pacific before they come back and get caught. They could contaminate the Rocky Mountain streams and lakes for goodness sake!
I know what you're thinking. Right about now you're thinking to yourself, "Well, this is one thing, at last, that will surprise the crazy bald dwarf."
Au cntrainere.
Response to 2naSalit (Reply #1)
Fri Oct 11, 2013, 02:10 AM
nadinbrzezinski (126,771 posts)
2. Tuna are not surprising
Salmon will take longer. Pacific Northwest, we have local sources of nuclear pollution. A certain reservation comes to mind.
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #2)
Fri Oct 11, 2013, 04:34 AM
delrem (2,847 posts)
11. Reports I'm reading about starfish populations in the Pacific Northwest are very worrying.
Not just worrying. It is ****ing well freaky, the condition the starfish are in.
I wonder. Is the crazy bald dwarf an expert on starfish?
Response to delrem (Reply #11)
Fri Oct 11, 2013, 02:40 PM
nadinbrzezinski (126,771 posts)
50. The starfish have zero to do with Fuku
I am betting it is a combo of higher PH in the ocean, due to higher CO2 concentrations absorbed into the water and either a virus or bacteria or both. Higher acidity is not helpful to these critters.
The distances are almost unbelievable and dilution from source is incredible. I mean I will be shocked if at this point they can measure any radiation on the West Coast. (And if they do, Hanford is a more likely cause, and they can tell them apart)
If we were talking off the coast of Honshu, I would buy it that it was due to pollution from that nuclear source. This is actually due to climate change and was predicted. Scripps is down the road, and every so often we go visit.
More than a line or two, but this clarification is needed.
Our resident mole from the DUmp dares question the dire nature of the dwarf's warning:
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)
Fri Oct 11, 2013, 02:15 AM
NYC_SKP (53,427 posts)
3. The authors of the study seem happy about this, it will help track migrations.
There's nothing in the study to demonstrate concern about safety or environmental harm.
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #3)
Fri Oct 11, 2013, 02:20 AM
nadinbrzezinski (126,771 posts)
6. It has not been long enough
For bio concentration to reach dangerous levels. That is the question, whether it will. And this little tidbit that we would be able to detect it, I said it at the height of the crisis.
So another chortle for me.
I can't say I blame them to be happy. Blue fin are threatened if not worst. enews copy was posted the other day and removed, but I had a fuzzy memory of having seen the study. So went looking. I should save shit like this more often.
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #3)
Fri Oct 11, 2013, 02:35 AM
nadinbrzezinski (126,771 posts)
9. And cannot copy
But the conclusions is that it is going down in concentrations.
I figured it was important to give people the source.
I hope they keep it up, since we still have an ongoing crisis.
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)
Fri Oct 11, 2013, 02:16 AM
Brother Buzz (8,918 posts)
4. Here's a message from the scientists noted in the study....
Scientists to eaters: Don't freak out over Fukushima fish
June 03, 2013|By Eryn Brown
A team of scientists who have been tracking radiation in bluefin tuna since the 2011 tsunami that crippled the Fukushima Daichi power plant have a message for fearful American eaters: Stop worrying about the health effects of eating fish that carried the radiation from Japan to U.S. shores.
And the bullies begin to swarm:
Response to Brother Buzz (Reply #4)
Fri Oct 11, 2013, 12:26 PM
SidDithers (29,452 posts)
22. +1...
thanks for introducing some much needed perspective to the thread.
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)
Fri Oct 11, 2013, 02:25 AM
DevonRex (21,985 posts)
8. LOL!! The PDF says it DECLINED.
The FDA comment says it's 300x below the level they'd investigate and that's BEFORE it declined.
Response to malaise (Reply #16)
Fri Oct 11, 2013, 12:47 PM
nadinbrzezinski (126,771 posts)
27. Of note, not at critical levels.
So I hope they keep this going.
I am just chortling at this point.
If we go over the debt ceiling (it looks we avoid it for the moment) I will have far more of those moments.
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)
Fri Oct 11, 2013, 12:27 PM
SidDithers (29,452 posts)
23. Stock up on Bactine and shelf-stable milk, just to be safe...
Response to Cleita (Reply #34)
Fri Oct 11, 2013, 01:20 PM
oldhippie (2,092 posts)
36. You seemed to have a concern about foods with high levels of radiation ....
Don't you know about the natural level of radiation in bananas? Much more than tuna. A quick google search will show you a lot.
Response to oldhippie (Reply #36)
Fri Oct 11, 2013, 01:43 PM
Cleita (66,997 posts)
42. Well. I don't eat bananas a whole lot so it's not a concern. Too many carbs.
However it should be a concern for those who import them and put them on our grocery shelves if that's true.
Response to Cleita (Reply #42)
Fri Oct 11, 2013, 02:57 PM
ProdigalJunkMail (10,514 posts)
55. 'if it's true'??? are you shitting me?
take the time to do some basic research before you spout off about this! taken them off the shelves??? holy SHIT! that is a completely asinine idea. the point is, that while bananas contain trace amounts of radioactive potassium, the amount of that radiation is NEGLIGIBLE and of NO REAL DANGER. THEN, this report says tuna has less radiation impact than a banana. hell, do you work or live or spend any time in a building made with bricks and concrete??? you better get out... THAT is more impactful than a banana as well.
some of the fear mongering shit on this board is out of control...
Fri Oct 11, 2013, 01:29 PM
nadinbrzezinski (126,771 posts)
41. The concentration right now is very low
And the pacific is huge. We have sources of nuke contamination on our own shore right now though (Hanford Nuclear Reservation comes to mind). Long term we are doing a lot of damage. Short term it's still safe.
DUmpangelnumbers, one of the DUmp's prominent lunatics, asks a question of the oracle:
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)
Fri Oct 11, 2013, 02:30 PM
darkangel218 (7,513 posts)
Is there any chance sardines are contaminated as well?
Yes!! And they cause mental illness!
Response to darkangel218 (Reply #47)
Fri Oct 11, 2013, 02:35 PM
nadinbrzezinski (126,771 posts)
48. It is very low at the moment
what I want to see is that research done, yes. Sardines have fatty tissues.
I have reduced my sea food to a minimum, actually due to other contaminants, such as Mercury. And I like sardines as well.
