I think we all knew this one was coming, but we just didn’t know when. The “radiation isotopes” levels taken from Tuna caught off the shore of California are being presented with a confusing front from the scientists to the journalists waving the “red flag” after discovering what is being described as “low levels” in tuna. The discovery of these contaminates may or may not be cause for concern, according to scientists who know the depth and breadth of radioactivity found in consumables, like tuna.
What’s very specific about this recently published report is the date (August, 2011) the samples were taken from Pacific caught Tuna. In general, the study states that these levels are present but “low”. It also suggests that other "large, highly mirgratory marine animals make extensive use of waters around Japan....may also be transport vectors" for radionuclides to North and South Pacific Oceans." See the following link to regarding this report by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/05/22/1204859109.) The following Abstract was taken from the preceding link:
Abstract
“The Fukushima Dai-ichi release of radionuclides into ocean waters caused significant local and global concern regarding the spread of radioactive material. We report unequivocal evidence that Pacific bluefin tuna, Thunnus orientalis, transported Fukushima-derived radionuclides across the entire North Pacific Ocean. We measured γ-emitting radionuclides in California-caught tunas and found 134Cs (4.0 ± 1.4 Bq kg−1) and elevated 137Cs (6.3 ± 1.5 Bq kg−1) in 15 Pacific bluefin tuna sampled in August 2011. We found no 134Cs and background concentrations (∼1 Bq kg−1) of 137Cs in pre-Fukushima bluefin and post-Fukushima yellowfin tunas, ruling out elevated radiocesium uptake before 2011 or in California waters post-Fukushima. These findings indicate that Pacific bluefin tuna can rapidly transport radionuclides from a point source in Japan to distant ecoregions and demonstrate the importance of migratory animals as transport vectors of radionuclides. Other large, highly migratory marine animals make extensive use of waters around Japan, and these animals may also be transport vectors of Fukushima-derived radionuclides to distant regions of the North and South Pacific Oceans. These results reveal tools to trace migration origin (using the presence of 134Cs) and potentially migration timing (using 134Cs:137Cs ratios) in highly migratory marine species in the Pacific Ocean.”
"Will it kill you?" Probably not. Will it make you feel sick? If you ate a lot of it (several pounds) it possibly could. Almost 80% of the worlds "fresh catch" caught goes to Japan. Even though we'd all like to avoid contaminated food, the levels found are (supposedly) low according to the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Typically, the FDA doesn't test all seafood imports, but since the disaster in Japan,it has and about 99% have been declared safe for consumption. However, according to the Government Accountability Office, only about 2% of seafood is inspected.
So how common is a problem like this one and how concerned should anyone become over consuming seafood? Unfortunately, radioactivity isn’t all too uncommon in our environment thanks to unexpected disasters like the Tsunami in Japan. To put it into perspective, we medically use some radioactivity in medical procedures while we also avoid it as much as possible.
“Radioactive wastes” are by-products of nuclear power, nuclear fission or technology. The “waste” is considered hazardous to life and the environment, regulated by the government for our protection. Consumption of these wastes isn’t recommended but is almost unavoidable in our culture today.
These “wastes” are comprised from “radioisotopes” which contain unstable configurations of elements that “decay and emit ionizing radiation” both harmful to humans and the environment. The “isotopes” emit different types of levels of radiation lasting for varying periods of time. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste)
Mercury
A greater concern for seafood lovers should be the "mercury" content in their seafood. Derived mostly from coal, Mercury stays in our system forever (just about) and is much more dangerous to our health than other forms of waste which will eventually leave our bodies (maybe or maybe not without further health problems). Pollutants, oil spills and plastics contribute a great deal of toxic waste and negatively affect our waterways and our overall health.
What does all this mean to you and me? Are we now supposed to avoid Tuna caught off the coast of California while also tiptoeing around seafood from the bottom of the Gulf? Do we shift gears, buying “Organic farm raised” products versus fresh catch? Do we just keep consuming and assuming the scientists are correct, and our concerns are minimal at best?
Since the data collected was from 2011 and just recently released, I would say we’re (probably) safer buying Tuna off the East Coast than the West Coast, and when necessary, purchase Organic products as much as possible. What do you say?
Quick Tips for Wellness: For now, East Coast catch is probably the safest bet.
Quick Tips for Wellness ™ Copyright © 2012, All Rights Reserved
Follow me on Facebook Quick Tips for Wellness and Twitter @wellnesstips4u
Vote for me to be the New Face of Fox 43 http://www.fox43tv.com/generic/face_of_fox_43/FOF12-pat-ferguson
No comments:
Post a Comment