Japan finds radioactive cesium in slaughtered minke whales

[Barrett808]

Radioactive caesium was detected from two minke whales caught off a city on the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido, 650 kilometres north-east of a damaged nuclear plant, a news report said Tuesday.

Researchers examined six of the 17 whales during so-called research whaling in Kushiro city, which started this year's season in late April, and they detected 31 becquerels and 24.3 becquerels of radioactive caesium per kilogram in the two whales out of the six, Kyodo News reported citing a whalers' association said, DPA reported. ...

Japan finds radioactive cesium in slaughtered minke whales

[Demeter]

1. Well, what did they expect?

shakes head sadly

[FBaggins]

2. It's of interest because the currents don't run in that direction

It means that the whales were somewhere reasonably close to Fukushima and traveled several hundred miles to where they were "caught" (read "slaughtered").

Now that I think about it though... I keep forgetting how long this has been going on. Whales regularly travel hundreds of miles in a week or two. I guess it's no surprise that they might be this far away 2-3 months later.

I wonder if we know the migratory patterns for this species?

[flamingdem]

3. At least they are testing, in the US they are still in denial ..

Eventually this will impact US fisheries on the Pacific coast.

[FBaggins]

4. The safety standard for Cesium in fish is about 20 times that high.

There's some "denial" going on, but this isn't evidence that the denial is on the side of those in the U.S. who don't expect significant contamination in our waters.

[flamingdem]

5. Nobody knows what to expect, that's why testing is needed nt

[FBaggins]

6. Baloney. This isn't magic, it's science.

You're like the severe agoraphobe who insists that everyone else needs to take his fears seriously and stay indoors. Japan has every reason to test their fish for contamination (certainly in areas at all close to the plant). The U.S. doesn't. There's no mechanism for contaminated water to STAY that contaminated all the way across thousands of miles without diluting and no possibility of fish (large enough to make the journey) to be contaminated enough and in large enough numbers to give anyone a significant dose.

They aren't even finding large fish in Japan above their limits except right in the area of the plant.

When the detected levels over there (like this one) are not a reason for concern... on what basis (besides attempted induced paranoia) would we need to test here?

I thought you would at least have picked up the straight line I left for you. Whales aren't fish. :)

[Eagle Mall]

7. You're no Scientist.

Scientists consider all evidence.

They don't lie, obfuscate, and deny things just because it's bad for business

[FBaggins]

8. Sorry... but I doubt you would recognize one if you saw one.

Since they're all saying essentially the same thing - you haven't a leg to stand on.

[kristopher]

9. "Since they are all saying", you'll have at least 6 references that are more than opinions.

Right?

[FBaggins]

10. That 24 Bq/kg isn't a matter for concern?

Sure.

But am I wasting my time to do so?

[kristopher]

11. Your claims extend beyond that...

It's of interest because the currents don't run in that direction
It means that the whales were somewhere reasonably close to Fukushima and traveled several hundred miles to where they were "caught" (read "slaughtered").

Now that I think about it though... I keep forgetting how long this has been going on. Whales regularly travel hundreds of miles in a week or two. I guess it's no surprise that they might be this far away 2-3 months later.

I wonder if we know the migratory patterns for this species?

[FBaggins]

12. You want me to back up which way the currents run near Japan?

And whether or not Whales can travela few hundred miles in a couple months?

Is either in dispute?

[kristopher]

13. How about support for the implication that you have any idea at all ...

of the route by which bioaccumulation is occurring in this instance.

[FBaggins]

14. You think that instead of being exposed and then swimming north...

...something smaller swam north and THEN got eaten? The fish they eat are awfully small to swim hundreds of miles.

But what difference would that make?

The point was still that there wouldn't be radioactive water flowing hundreds of miles in that direction so I speculated how they got there. What's the big deal?

[kristopher]

17. That is precisely the kind of post people refer to when they say you are always wrong

You haven't got a clue about what is going on, yet you act like you do.

[FBaggins]

18. Then those people are making fools of themselves

As you have here.

Did you have anything of substance to add? Anything that you can actually disagree with and support?

Were you under the impression that radioactive water flows backwards?

[kristopher]

19. Have you ever heard of the experiments to determine the amount of CO2 sequestration

that results when seeding the oceans with iron?

They serve as an example of the state of our knowledge regarding transport of materials under the ocean. To be succinct, our state of knowledge is extremely poor.

Answer a question on another topic for me, if you would.

Do you know what DU policy is about allowing moderators to post using alternate names?

I know I could go to ask the admins, but that takes so long and I thought you might have some insight into the topic.

[SpoonFed]

15. Don't care...

But am I wasting my time to do so?

You're certainly wasting our time.

[FBaggins]

16. Is there some reason that I should care whether or not you care?

So far I fail to see any reason.