Questions about the safety of food from Japan and the Pacific still loom, despite reassurances from scientists and government officials. While the U.S. is one of 44 countries and regions with bans placed on certain food imports from Japan, the acceptable limit of radiation in food is a controversial subject.
Concerns include radiation in exported fish and rice, as well as migratory fish exposed to radiation that might then swim thousands of miles before being caught off of California and served in Boston.
Currently the U.S. radiation limit is 12 times higher (less stringent) than Japan’s; but officials claim that any food exceeding Japan’s much lower limit will not be exported or even sold domestically.
Only a small percentage of Japanese rice tested has exceeded this limit. The Japanese government claims that homegrown rice is safe to eat. But distrust of government and fear have created a demand for rice imports from China and other countries among many Japanese people.
Japan is the only country actively testing fish and reporting the results to the public; 170 species are tested and 42 species are considered off-limits due to radiation fears.
For the U.S., the FDA announced just one month after the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami struck that it would not be testing fish off the West Coast. Many scientists claim that dilution from the vastness of the Pacific mitigates any cause for concern.
Yet a study conducted by Stanford University, published in February 2012, revealed that 15 out of 15 bluefin tuna caught off the coast of San Diego contained traces of cesium, a radionuclide that was directly linked to the Fukushima nuclear accident.
The migratory tuna travel between Japan and the West Coast of the U.S., and tested 10 times higher than previous years. Following this study, researchers at Oregon State University found detectable levels of cesium in Albacore tuna caught off the Pacific Northwest coast — these too were linked to Fukushima.
However, the researchers from both studies concluded that the amount detected was too low to pose any significant health risk. According to scientists, the radioactive fish are safe to eat, despite the cesium.
In fact, according to many scientists, the amount of radiation found in the contaminated fish is no more than that contained in a banana (bananas naturally contain radioactive potassium-40 and have been used to illustrate the concept of equivalent doses, but the illustration is problematic).
Other scientists, including Dr. Helen Caldicott and Harvey Wesserman, say that any amount of ingested radionuclides is dangerous because each dose adds to what is already in the body, known as bioaccumulation. That increases the risk of genetic mutations, cancer and other issues associated with radiation. According to Caldicott, once ingested, the particles continuously emit radiation for years because of their long half-lives and can lodge themselves in muscle tissue or even bones, irradiating and damaging cells.
Aside from the limited tests and studies conducted so far, the full extent of food contamination in Japan and the Pacific is relatively unknown. As Caldicott claims, the health consequences can take years, even decades, to fully manifest.
With 300 tons of contaminated water flowing into the Pacific each day, leading to the bioaccumulation of radionuclides into the ecosystem, the risks for humans at the top of the food chain have indefinitely increased.
Personal responsibility is a complicated issue, especially in regards to karma. A friend recently warned that the growers of medical marijuana have a responsible to be sure their product reaches the right people and is not abused. I cannot help but wonder about the karma parents are accruing by feeding their children GMOs. So, every time a mom uses a cake mix or brownie or cookie mix, they are feeding their children poison that will build up in their bodies. Forget about fast food and what is really used for ingredients at McDonald’s and elsewhere. All of them, really.
In tandem, Fukushima and the BP spill represent an extinction level event. We are cooked in so many ways, yet people remain passive.
Mia
Oops, I forgot to post the link to the article: http://beforeitsnews.com/beyond-science/2012/10/hueyatlaco-250000-year-old-settlement-in-mexico-found-under-volcanic-ash-2439498.html
Chief Niwots Son,
You are right about that phrase. Here’s an article about a young geologist, Virginia Steen-McIntyre, who found human habitation in Mexico 240,000 years ago. The “most scientists” BS happened to her; she lost so much because those ‘scientists” were unwilling to see the evidence which was later proven by Dr. Sam VanLandingham.
As for seafood; we stopped eating it after Fukushima happened. That also goes for fish oil supplements, DHA supplements from krill oil, and anything seafood. Who knows, some may come from the Gulf of Mexico; that would be also unsafe to eat because of the BP use of Corexit in the cleanup. Retailers will lie to sell so we don’t even eat seafood purported to be from the Atlantic or fresh water. Not worth the risk.
I’m with you, Chief Niwots Son, “many scientists believe” is the height of journalistic laziness, & an insidious threat to actual dialog as well as basic fact dissemination. It’s appalling that an even mildly respected journalist can get away with such disregard for the basic tenets of the profession.
“Many scientists claim that dilution from the vastness of the Pacific mitigates any cause for concern.”
“Many scientists claim.” That’s always the phrase used in our culture for justification of all manner of questionable BS. I was reading another story this morning about some solid evidence that human beings lived in South America 30,000 years ago, and feasted on now extinct giant sloths. Point being the article began with the phrase “Most scientists believe humans first came to the Western Hemisphere 13,000 – 15,000 years ago…” Even though there has been a spate of evidence uncovered in recent years that refutes the official story, a journalist will used the phrase “most scientists believe” as part of the trance induction in their story. Labeling someone a scientist somehow qualifies their beliefs as being more important regarding “reality” than anyone else’s perspective.
Back to our fishy claim about radioactive seafood- I’d like to know which scientists believe that radioactive seafood is safe, what their credentials are, and who signs their paychecks. I’d also like to hear from an independent panel of professional ethicists, and from a panel of board-certified, and appropriately trained professional skeptics. (Sadly these don’t actually exist.) And most of all I’d love for journalists to stop using the phrase “many scientists believe,” because it represents one of the more insidious, and blatantly obvious, manifestations of Agent Smith’s Matrix.