Canada: Fish Eaters Threatened by Fukushima Radiation

[flamingdem]

http://www.readersupportednews.org/news-section2/343-203/9463-canada-fish-eaters-threatened-by-fukushima-radiation

excerpt:
Evidence has emerged that the impacts of the disaster on the Pacific Ocean are worse than expected.

Since a tsunami and earthquake destroyed the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant last March, radioactive cesium has consistently been found in 60 to 80 per cent of Japanese fishing catches each month, as tested by Japan's Fisheries Agency.

In November, 65 per cent of the catches tested positive for cesium (a radioactive material created by nuclear reactors), according to a Montreal Gazette analysis of data on the fisheries agency's website. Cesium is a long-lived radionuclide that persists in the environment and increases the risk of cancer, according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, which says the most common form of radioactive cesium has a half-life of 30 years.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which monitors food safety, says it is aware of the numbers but says the amounts of cesium detected are small.

"Approximately 60 per cent of fish have shown to have detectable levels of radionuclides," it said in an emailed statement.

"The majority of exported fish to Canada are caught much farther from the coast of Japan, and the Japanese testing has shown that these fish have not been contaminated with high levels of radionuclides."

[dixiegrrrrl]

1. How trustworthy is Japanese testing of their own fish for sale?

Ever since the disaster first struck, there has been a continuous effort to downplay the effects of radiation on people, crops, and livestock in Japan, with "updated corrections" coming well after the fact of contamination has been discovered.

[FBaggins]

2. A dishonest title.

Not you of course... the source.

Canada most certainly didn't say that... nor any official agency in Canada. In fact, just the opposite.

“The quantities of radioactive material reaching Canada are very small and within normal ranges,” CFIA spokesperson Lisa Gauthier said in an emailed statement.

“They do not pose any health risk to Canadians, the food we eat or the plants and animals in Canada.”

[flamingdem]

3. They note that it is of concern

as well they should considering the unknowns involved, they'd have to be Pollyannas to assume that no harm would result, they do not assume this.

[FBaggins]

4. "They do not pose any health risk to Canadians, the food we eat or the plants and animals in Canada"

Some "concern" they're expressing there.

They don't have to be pollyannas to assume that no harm will result... just scientists.

The only "unknown" is whether radiation levels in fish consumed by Canadians are 1/100th the level that should cause concern... or 1/1000th.

[caraher]

5. The distinction between "detectable" and worrisome...

It would be surprising if no "detectable" levels of Cs-137 were found given the amount of the releases, and it's encouraging that 20% or more of the catch apparently has no detectable level.

But the same article does say some fish do have levels high enough to cause concern:

In November, 18 per cent of cod exceeded a new radiation ceiling for food to be implemented in Japan in April - along with 21 per cent of eel, 22 per cent of sole and 33 per cent of seaweed.

Overall, one in five of the 1,100 catches tested in November exceeded the new ceiling of 100 becquerels per kilogram. (Canada's ceiling for radiation in food is much higher: 1,000 becquerels per kilogram.)

After quoting Nicholas Fisher, a marine sciences professor at SUNY Stony Brook, saying he would hesitate to eat "lots" of this fish, the article adds,

Fisher is researching how radiation from Fukushima is affecting the Pacific fishery. "There has been virtually zero monitoring and research on this," he said, calling on other governments to do more radiation tests on the ocean's marine life.

"Is it something we need to be terrified of? No. Is it something we need to monitor? Yes, particularly in coastal waters where concentrations are high."

It's worth reading the whole article - a lot of good data are presented toward the end. The bottom line seems to be that there really ought to be much better monitoring of seafood contamination. There are a lot of unknowns regarding the impact of this large a discharge of radionuclides into the sea, and it sounds like there's not as much study underway as the situation merits.

[flamingdem]

6. Thanks for adding this - if a scientist

says he wouldn't eat much of that fish I know I they are saying it's not a great idea to eat it essentially.