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
 

snooper2

(30,151 posts)
2. So I followed your link that is linked to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Thu Feb 6, 2014, 01:40 PM
Feb 2014

Oh, and look what they have to say....


Robert Robert Robert LOL


http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83397&tid=3622&cid=94989


What is the state of fisheries off Japan and along U.S. West Coast?

The coastal fisheries remain closed in Japan near Fukushima, where there is a concern for some species, especially the bottom dwelling ones, which are being tested and many have been found to be above the Japanese government's strict limits for cesium in seafood. These contaminated fish are not being sold internally in Japan or exported. Because of the dilution that occurs even a short distance from Fukushima, we do not have a concern about the levels of cesium and other radionuclides in fish off the West Coast of the U.S.



Are fish such as tuna that might have been exposed to radiation from Fukushima safe to eat?

Seawater everywhere contains many naturally occurring radionuclides, the most common being polonium-210. As a result, fish caught in the Pacific and elsewhere already have measurable quantities of these substances. Most fish do not migrate far from home, which is why fisheries off Fukushima remain closed. But some species, such as the Pacific bluefin tuna, can swim long distances and could pick up cesium in their feeding grounds off Japan. However, cesium is a salt taken up by the flesh that will begin to flush out of an exposed fish soon after they enter waters less affected by Fukushima. By the time tuna are caught in the eastern Pacific, cesium levels in their flesh are 10-20 times lower than when they were off Fukushima. Moreover, the dose from Fukushima cesium is considered insignificant relative to the dose from naturally occurring polonium-210, which was 1000 times higher in fish samples studied, and both of these are much lower relative to other, more common sources, such as dental x-rays.



Will radiation be of concern along U.S. and Canadian coasts?

Levels of any Fukushima contaminants in the ocean will be many thousands of times lower after they mix across the Pacific and arrive on the West Coast of North America some time in late 2013 or 2014. This is not to say that we should not be concerned about additional sources of radioactivity in the ocean above the natural sources, but at the levels expected even short distances from Japan, the Pacific will be safe for boating, swimming, etc.


That is so wonderful! ananda Feb 2014 #1
So I followed your link that is linked to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution snooper2 Feb 2014 #2
Apparently not as radioactive as some are claiming. longship Feb 2014 #3
You making things up yet again RE? FBaggins Feb 2014 #4
Oh, it's there RobertEarl Feb 2014 #11
A simple "yes... I'm making it up" would do FBaggins Feb 2014 #12
Yes it is RobertEarl Feb 2014 #13
I have... in fact I posted it already FBaggins Feb 2014 #14
Oh, you need help? RobertEarl Feb 2014 #15
2011? FBaggins Feb 2014 #18
That's what I wrote earlier RobertEarl Feb 2014 #20
... SidDithers Feb 2014 #5
Ocean water off La Jolla coast being monitored (and not) for Fukushima radiation Octafish Feb 2014 #6
Indeed RobertEarl Feb 2014 #7
If researchers can't get funding for Fukushima, it must mean there's nothing to worry about. Octafish Feb 2014 #8
No one needs to make it seem worse than it is RobertEarl Feb 2014 #10
Check out this chili recipe zappaman Feb 2014 #9
I think the SOP of GD should be updated to include the phrase "No (deliberate) misinformation". Vashta Nerada Feb 2014 #16
You? Again? RobertEarl Feb 2014 #17
Abso-fucking-lutely... SidDithers Feb 2014 #21
That's not true RobertEarl Feb 2014 #22
From the site RobertEarl Feb 2014 #19
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Scientists in mad scrambl...»Reply #2