Posts: 3,088
Threads: 22
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
13
Think twice about that can of tunafish...
[url "http://samuel-warde.com/2013/08/radioactive-bluefin-tuna-caught-off-california-coast/"]http://samuel-warde.com/...ff-california-coast/[/url]
makes you wonder if Pacific salmon and halibut are being tested, and what levels of cesium 134 and 137 are being found in them?
[signature]
Posts: 2,396
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2006
Reputation:
0
I would think the Oil spill from BP would have a bigger effect on Fish eaten by Americans than radiation from Japan.
[signature]
Posts: 2,727
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
0
Well the salmon and halibut I eat comes from Alaska. The predicted path of radiation doesn't look too bad overall for salmon's migratory paths. Sure I'd rather it didn't happen but there's risk with everything.
I don't purposely eat fish with high mercury. However there are no studies to show greater harm from eating more fish with mercury. This includes pregnant women and the infants born afterwards. Science suggest the detrimental effects of mercury on the fetus developing brain are fair less than the benefits of higher omega 3 and other fatty acids. The more fish a pregnant women eats correlates with higher IQ's in the offspring.
Unless marked increases occur I doubt the increased radioactivity is enough to justify eating less fish and it forgoing known health benefits associated with it. You can always take a few iodine pills to absorbs less of these radioactive elements if you're paranoid.
[signature]
Posts: 2,727
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
0
I don't tend to eat any seafood from the Gulf unless I'm there fishing or eating out.
The Pacific Ocean supplies 4 times as much seafood for consumption to the US than the Gulf. My take is all of it right now is better for you than eating more red meat.
[signature]
Posts: 2,514
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
[quote riverdog]Radioctivity levels up 3%! Run to the fall out shelter[:p]. (sarcasm font)
[/quote]
+1.
RE"makes you wonder if Pacific salmon and halibut are being tested, and what levels of cesium 134 and 137 are being found in them? "
It certainly is worth watching, but over the long haul, even with persistent eIevations, I'd predict that salmon will be safer than longer lived species such as tuna. Their lifespan is 4 times shorter than a tuna and they simply don't live long enough to bioaccumulate comparable levels of such elements. Never have eaten a lot of tuna (except rare trips to the sushi restaurant) and I think canned tunafish is nasty, but salmon is still on the menu for me.
[signature]
Posts: 1,597
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
Reputation:
1
[#ff0000]HOLY SHIIIIIIIIIIIT I'M GONNA DIE!!!!!!![/#ff0000]
[signature]
Posts: 2,727
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
0
Me too[laugh]. Hopefully not too soon.
[signature]
Posts: 3,724
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation:
0
Looks like I'm safe because I hate tuna [angelic]
[signature]
Posts: 253
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation:
0
I am of the belief this will ultimately change the genetic DNA of fish, and an entire new breed of fish will created - some kind of mutant fish that because of the radation, will be bigger, badder, faster, and more pissed off. This may actually be good for fishing and the art of catch and release.
[signature]
Posts: 931
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
0
Yes, of course!
It will also change fishing techniques.
Glow in the dark lures will be the standard.
Custom lures will have plutonium dust mixed into the forever glowing plastic for convenience. No more having to charge them with a flashlight.
[signature]
Posts: 761
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation:
0
I can't imagine how radioactive the fish off the west coast are going to be here soon, with the leak in Japan. They'll be catching three eyed tuna before you know it.
[signature]
Posts: 11,131
Threads: 4
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation:
0
[inline Simpsons-fish-Blinky.jpg]
[signature]
]
].
