national

Radioactive bluefin tuna crossed Pacific to U.S.

51 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2017 GPlusMedia Inc.

51 Comments
Login to comment

Japan will get those bluefin one way or another -- either by over-fishing or radioactivity. Yup, and Japan told the U.S. to shove their offer of help with the nuclear crisis because it was strictly a domestic issue. Will Japan ever wake up?

4 ( +9 / -5 )

This is a blessing in disguise the fhe tuna. With the antinuclear crowd refraining from eating toro, fewer of them will be fished.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

lol i wander if that radiation will create a tunazilla..lol jk but that sounds like a pretty tough fish to have that much radation in him and swim across the ocean like that.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Enjoy that 100yen kappazushi maguro while you can

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Radiation is like a bad friend. It is very difficult to get rid of.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I wonder what my level of ceisum-134 and cesium-137 is

1 ( +2 / -1 )

What the sad thing is, is that fishing STILL hasn't been banned in the area. Honestly, ban fishing in the area. I don't care about those poor fishermen - get them set up somewhere else. I care about the public eating this crap and the government looking the other way while they do it.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Sounds like it's a fake claim and a 'backdoor' way of trying to get Japan to slow down fishing of the Bluefin Tuna.

-16 ( +2 / -18 )

My goodness, these people are so "the glass is half empty!!". Think about it this way, there were a limited number of radioactive particles released, and by distributing them over a larger area it reduces the health risks to those at highest risk. In effect these tuna (still well within the "safe to eat" limits) are taking the radiation from Japan and spreading it to other areas.

The net effect? A natural reduction in the concentration of radiation around Japan at no real risk to anyone else (no-one has enough money to eat a lot of bluefin tuna). All this at zero extra cost to the taxpayer.

I really see this as a plus, and not something to be upset about. Is it interesting? Sure. It is something to worry about? No, it's good!

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

another reason to avoid fish from the Pacific ocean.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The title sounds like this poor creature is a terrorist up to spread radiation around the US. Had good laugh early in the morning.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The bluefin is almost gone anyway... no big deal.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

I wonder if Japanese "scientists" will begin a sudden "research project" which necessitates hoovering up millions of tuna to investigate the phenomenon. To eliminate waste, the remainder of the tuna not required in the research could be sold on as food.

12 ( +15 / -4 )

It was a nuclear meltdown that Japan's government lied about. The fish received plenty of radiation.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Frungy, you're saying that more radioactive contamination the better? The "domestic" matter of radioactive contamination is better spread to other countires? So, no longer domestic?

For a nation who swims in ideological propaganda every single day, you sure do suck at presenting it convincingly.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Prices should drop and I love my Otoro.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

9,650 kilometers away ... The levels of radioactive cesium were 10 times higher ... far below safe-to-eat limits

in USA, not much, nice to know.. now what about the fish etc being caught closer to Fukishima ?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

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.

Oh phew for a second I thought there was actually a story here.

The results "are unequivocal. Fukushima was the source," said Ken Buesseler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, who had no role in the research.

And for good reason.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

frungy,

Hope you realize those tuna do ROUNDTRIPS, not one way.

So like Schwartznegger THEY WILL BE BACK!

3 ( +5 / -2 )

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 Great! back to my beloved Mexico too?? Time for all of this BS nuclear power plants to be all shut down ASAP all around the world now!!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

DoLittleBeLateMay. 29, 2012 - 08:47AM JST Frungy, you're saying that more radioactive contamination the better? The "domestic" matter of radioactive contamination is better spread to other countires? So, no longer domestic?

Umm.. No. As I wrote at the start of my post, there's a finite amount of radiation. All in one place it amounts to a big problem. Spread over a wide area (via tuna), it represents no problem. Hence this is GOOD, and not the negative that the media is trying to turn it into.

GWMay. 29, 2012 - 09:42AM JST frungy, Hope you realize those tuna do ROUNDTRIPS, not one way.

Not if someone eats them on the way :) (or even just eats a few of them) .

One thing that is missing from this report is a comparison of the radiation levels in the tuna at the start of their journey and at the end. It would be interesting to see how much radiation these tuna have "shed" along the way.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Why are people surprised about all of this?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

What is the big deal?

still far below safe-to-eat limits set by the U.S. and Japanese governments.

I guess some people have nothing better to do than to spout off about something that is really nothing!

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Japanese consume 80 per cent of the world's Pacific and Atlantic bluefin tuna.

So Japanese themselves will effectively consume their own radiation

7 ( +7 / -0 )

"But even so, that’s still far below safe-to-eat limits set by the U.S. and Japanese governments."

Did Edano write this article?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Good. Now the advent of the rise of mutant powers!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tmarie

What the sad thing is, is that fishing STILL hasn't been banned in the area.

Why would they? If they test the fish caught for radiation, surely that is enough.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It is a research people! It is more amazing they can measure those low levels and compare with data from the 60-ies! Of coarse it proves something and it is good to know and it is even better for the researchers - they have now food for research for years to come !!!

Oh and BTW I'm sure those Fukushima derived 137Ce tuna is more delicious than the one contaminated from US and French nuclear tests! (sorry couldn't hold myself)

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Start testing the swordfish, shark and other peak predators that may eat the tuna.

USA, your tuna has been pwned by TEPCO.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Waht the sad thing is, is that fishing STILL hasn't been banned in the area.

I am not sure about other fishing towns but I hear from people there that at least in Iwaki there has been no fishing recently.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Radioactive bluefin tuna crossed Pacific to U.S.

*Delicious Radioactive bluefin tuna crossed Pacific to U.S.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

the_harper

Start testing the swordfish, shark and other peak predators that may eat the tuna

Swordfish and sharks don't, in general, eat tuna. Tuna are big and bad enough to look after themselves and are usually seen eating common prey with sharks; not getting eaten by them.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

This is a blessing in disguise the fhe tuna. With the antinuclear crowd refraining from eating toro, fewer of them will be fished.

Or maybe we'll just let the pro-nuclear folks eat all the radioactive fish...

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

USA, your tuna has been pwned by TEPCO.

No, I think they pwned their own. Check out the below link for radiation doses around the world. Look who has the highest recording and look at all the other numbers recorded in various locations around the world.

http://www.jnto.go.jp/eq/eng/04_recovery.htm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thomas Anderson

Or maybe we'll just let the pro-nuclear folks eat all the radioactive fish...

I think they would have no qualms eating these tuna since they have safe levels of radiation.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Can you imagine the media frenzy in Japan, if it were the other way around - radiation coming from an American or Chinese power plant? It would be non-stop.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

80% consumed by voters who continue to vote in corrupt governments, karma

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Why would they? If they test the fish caught for radiation, surely that is enough.

Do you actually think they do this? Do you think they test every fish they caught? Do you not think about crab, shrimp and other fish in the area that are also toxic?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The BBC report on this item quotes: " If you calculate how much additional radioactivity there is in the Pacific Bluefin tuna caught in California relative to the natural background - it's about 3%," said Prof Fisher"

This puts it in perspective. Eat 30 pieces of tuna instead of 31 to keep your exposure unchanged.

Link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18239107

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I wonder if Japanese "scientists" will begin a sudden "research project" which necessitates hoovering up millions of tuna to investigate the phenomenon. To eliminate waste, the remainder of the tuna not required in the research could be sold on as food.

LOL Ivan.

Glad to see the quoted expert is called Fisher.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Eat 30 pieces of tuna instead of 31 to keep your exposure unchanged

Yes good advice and an excellent summary for this article.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Be warned that the amount of radiation will only continue to increase in fish as radiation is accumulative -these figures are out of date!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Be warned that the amount of radiation will only continue to increase in fish as radiation is accumulative -these figures are out of date!

If the tuna stayed in the radioactive waters off of Fukushima year-round, this might be true, but they spend MOST of their lives away from Fukushima. Therefore:

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 system.

Perhaps you're confusing mercury levels with radiation levels?

I do have an issue with one part of the article:

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.

What type of sails do the tuna use to transit the Pacific? Are they square-rigged four-masters?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As far as the debris from the diaster from the tsunami is concerned, we as Americans have more garbabe floating in the oceans than any countyry in the world. The ocena are our litter basket and we will dump our garbage were ever and when ever we like; and to canon shot to ever doesn't like it. The small amout of debris from Japan is just one days worth of litter from New York. As a proud American I can say that I contribute my fair share of crap in the worlds ocean, and damned proud of it, too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kurispisu,

Be warned that the amount of radiation will only continue to increase in fish as radiation is accumulative -these figures are out of date!

Yep. And let's not forget about biomagnification as Bluefin Tunas are big fishes which eat A LOT of smaller fishes and planktons which could be also potentially radioactive.

Biology, baby!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Daijoboots,

No, I think they pwned their own. Check out the below link for radiation doses around the world. Look who has the highest recording and look at all the other numbers recorded in various locationste around the world.

http://www.jnto.go.jp/eq/eng/04_recovery.htm

Based on the link you provided, Fukushima-city, which still has not been evacuated, has the highest dose of radiation when compared to all other cities around the world listed there. Your link states that Fukushima-city has a dose rate of 0.60 uSV/hr. Meanwhile, New York city, if that's where you're comparing Japan to, has a dose rate of .094 uSV/hr. The level of radiation in Fukushima-city is over 6 times higher than New York's.

You have to remember that Tohoku's source of radiation is from the by-products of nuclear fission which consists radioactive isotopes like cesium-134/137. Meanwhile the rest of the world is pretty much affected by normal background radiation instead which does not consist of man-made isotopes like cesium-134/137.

Yellowfin tunas are "largely residential in the Eastern Pacfic" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18239107. Based on the non-detectable levels of cesium-134/137 in Yellowfin tunas that the article states, we could verify that the US didn't pwn their own Bluefin tunas. Instead, it was TEPCO who really pwned them. So the_harper was correct regarding his statement.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

tmarie

Do you actually think they do this? Do you think they test every fish they caught? Do you not think about crab, shrimp and other fish in the area that are also toxic?

Nope, not every fish. A sample population is enough. And I'm pretty sure that they don't harvest crabs from there and I don't eat shrimp.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USA should ban all tuna imports from Japan just as Japan banned all beef imports from the USA. Unfounded decision making in food supplies is terrible. Enjoy the tuna and the beef. A person cannot eat enough in 10 years to make a difference.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tsunami debris ending up in US cannot be helped, but this is entirely Japan's fault, and Japan needs to clean up this radioactivity mess. I can only imagine this will get worse. People should be outraged at Japan if more nuclear contaminated fish ends up in US plates.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Crossed the pacific? ...maybe they didn't. Either way, these findings, along with radioactive kelp in California, is probably just the tip of the iceberg.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

This just shows how little we really know about radiation's effects to the environment and it's habitants.

What about the other ocean dwellers, specially ones that we consume? What effects would it also have on the animals living deep down below the Pacific ocean, the ones scientists are still starting to know of?

Sure, some people might say "it's still below the safety limits". True. But what of the other ecosystems that we have a direct or indirect reliance on?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites