I received several questions about whether my recommendations for fish consumption (one pound of cold-water, fatty fish per week) had changed since the Fukushima disaster. You may have seen reports in the media about the discovery of radioactive isotopes (cesium-134 and cesium-137) in Pacific bluefin tuna that migrated from Japan to California waters. (1) This was covered by more than a thousand newspapers worldwide and several thousand internet, television and radio outlets.
Unfortunately, despite statements by the authors of the original research and other authorities to the contrary, these media reports led to widespread belief that fish on the Pacific coast of the U.S. now contain harmful levels of radioactive chemicals. Several people have told me that they’re no longer eating seafood themselves or serving it to their children because of this information.
While it’s natural and appropriate to be concerned about radiation, in this case the concern is unfounded. A recent peer-reviewed study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences evaluated the health risks of consuming Pacific bluefin tuna after the Fukushima event and found the following: (2)
- A typical restaurant-sized portion of Pacific bluefin tuna (200 grams, or 7 ounces) contains about 5% of the radiation you would get from eating one uncontaminated banana and absorbing it’s naturally occurring radiation. All foods on the planet contain radiation. Like every other toxin, it’s the dose of radiation (rather than its simple presence) that determines whether it’s toxic to humans.
- Levels of naturally occurring radioactive isotopes (polonium-210 and potassium-40) in bluefin tuna are greater by orders of magnitude than levels of radioactive isotopes from Fukushima contamination (cesium-134 and cesium-137). In fact, levels of polonium-210 were 600 times higher than cesium. This suggests that the additional radiation (in the form of cesium) from Fukushima is insignificant from a health perspective.
- Even at very high intakes (3/4 of a pound of contaminated bluefin tuna a day) for an entire year, you’d still receive only 12% of the dose of radiation you’re exposed to during one cross-country flight from LA to New York.
- Assuming the very high levels of fish consumption above, the excess relative risk of fatal cancer would be only 2 additional cases per 10 million similarly exposed people. And there’s reason to believe that number is no more than chance. Statistically significant elevations in cancer risk are only observed at doses of radiation that are 25,000 times higher than what you’d be exposed to by eating 3/4 of a pound of bluefin tuna per day.
- Some bottom-feeding fish right off the coast of Japan contain much higher levels of radiation (i.e. >250 times more cesium) than those found in Pacific bluefin tuna. Even if you consumed 1/3 of a pound per day of this highly contaminated fish, you’d still be below the international dose limit for radiation exposure from food.
Finally, according to Dr. Robert Emery at at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston says you’d need to eat 2.5 to 4 tons of tuna in a year to get a dose of cesium-137 that exceeds health limits. (3) That’s 14 to 22 pounds of tuna a day.
To date, I haven’t seen any credible evidence suggesting that there’s even a minuscule risk from eating fish caught in the Pacific ocean. If you read an article on the internet or elsewhere claiming that Fukushima radiation in seafood is causing problems, check to see if it includes references to studies published in peer-reviewed journals by independent researchers. If it doesn’t, I’d advise a healthy dose of skepticism.
My recommendations for seafood consumption haven’t changed. If there’s any risk you should be concerned about when it comes to fish, it’s the risk of not eating enough!
Better supplementation. Fewer supplements.
Close the nutrient gap to feel and perform your best.
A daily stack of supplements designed to meet your most critical needs.
Over a year ago, in May of 2012, the Wall Street Journal reported on a Stanford University study. Daniel Madigan, a marine ecologist who led the study, was quoted as saying, “The tuna packaged it up (the radiation) and brought it across the world’s largest ocean. We were definitely surprised to see it at all and even more surprised to see it in every one we measured.”
“We found that absolutely every one of them had comparable concentrations of cesium 134 and cesium 137.”
http://topinfopost.com/2013/10/10/fukushima-is-here-all-bluefin-tuna-caught-in-california-are-radioactive
Chris Kresser,
More truth:
EFFECTS IN U.S. TO BE DEVASTATING: MASSIVE RADIATION SPIKE AT FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR DISASTER SITE; 1 MIL. TIMES MORE RADIOACTIVE STRONTIUM IN WELL-WATER APPROACHING PACIFIC OCEAN, THEN U.S. WEST COAST
http://www.turnerradionetwork.com/news/110-pat
Chris Kresser,
The first radiation related sickness stories are coming out now. Animals are dying by the hundreds in the Pacific and you still haven’t changed your recommendations. Very sad and very telling. Have you forgotten about this story and your duty to your readers???
51 Sailors from USS Ronald Reagan Suffering Thyroid Cancer, Leukemia, Brain Tumors After Participating in Fukushima Nuclear Rescue Efforts
http://www.turnerradionetwork.com/news/99-pat
What do you think about this news report that the milk in Hawaii has very high amounts of radiation…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afhoUFiigrc
It seems a bit coincidental that this report follows an announcement that there is going to be large grass feed dairy farm coming to the Island of Kauai that will double the local supply of milk, significantly reducing imports.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/24117696/dairy-farm-coming-to-kauai?utm_content=bufferc4d38&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=Buffer
Any thoughts?
–Sheena
In light of this most recent article, which appeared Dec. 1, 2013: http://fukushimaupdate.com/what-is-the-actual-risk-for-pacific-coast-residents-from-fukushima-radiation/ I’d be interested if Chris and others would still want to be less cautious about consuming seafood…..
Science Daily. Even the lowest amounts of radiation can cause damage to human tissue.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/meta-review-of-46-studies-even-the-lowest-level-radiation-is-damaging-to-human-health/5312306
Bottom line…. THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL OF RADIATION beyond normal back round levels.
However, what is background varies all over the world. As Professor of Physics Richard Muller of the University of California – Berkeley Physics Department points out in his article, “The Panic Over Fukushima”:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444772404577589270444059332
The normal background level, which you claim is safe; for Denver, Colorado is THREE TIMES the radiation level one finds in Fukushima.
So are the radiation levels in Fukushima to be considered dangerous because they are man-made; while radiation levels that are THREE TIMES HIGHER in Denver, Colorado to be considered safe because it’s only background radiation?
Folks there are some ways to help mitigate the effects and ingestion of radionuclides from Fukushima and elsewhere. Certain foods protect us from ionizing radiological damage. Cruciferous veggies such as broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts, and others contain DIM, a substance that not only protects you from the damage of ionization, but also repairs DNA damaged by it. Google for this info, it’s a scientific fact. Zeolites have been used successfully at Chernobyl to help detox people, animals, and even crops. Ingestion of them (I take a liquid form myself) will help detox any heavy metal, chemical, and radionuclide out of the body safely. They contain positively charged cages that trap any negatively charged particle, binding them to the cage so they cannot escape. These are then carried out of the body thru the stools and urine. Some research shows that some forms of Vit. C that have been enveloped in fat will detox much radiation in the body. Activated charcoal will detox the stomach and colon of ingested particles. Make sure you drink plenty of filtered, clean water and that you move your bowels at least twice a day. Soaking in a tub of hot water filled with a cup of salt and a cup of baking soda will detox the skin and if you happen to walk in the rain which nowadays can be hot with radionuclides make sure you take a shower as soon a possible. There is much more one can do, you can research this yourselves. Good luck all… Fukushima is a game changer, I’m sorry to say.
Thanks, Bob, for these helpful tips. I wonder what Chris has to say about this, too. I hope he does more research in this area, beyond the conventional sources.
You forgot to mention what happens when the fish that migrate out into the Pacific ingest alpha emitting particulate from plutonium and uranium and are later eaten by people. There are studies on what happens to people when they ingest these alpha particles. What are the chances that salmon, a fish that actually migrates from the west coast to near the Fukushima site, could pick up such particulate? This is where the danger lies, not just in the background radiation from what I understand. No pro nuclear industry blogs seem to mention this fact. Hmmmm…..
Dave – an alpha particle is the nucleus of the Helium-4 atom; which is INERT. An alpha particle itself, is also INERT and harmless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_particle
So what is the problem. The problem is if you encounter an energetic alpha particle emitted by a radioisotope. It’s the ENERGY of the freshly emitted alpha particle that is dangerous. However, once that energy is dissipated; which happens in a few inches of air, or in the thickness of a sheet of paper; then the alpha particle becomes harmless.
So ingesting the alpha particle itself is NOT dangerous. Ingesting the parent radioisotope of the alpha particle is what is dangerous. Then the energy is dissipated in your tissues where it can cause damage.
Chris,
Thanks for your often insightful articles. I just discovered your website recently and now see you all over the place. While there’s a general media blackout in the west, there is a fair amount of grounded, scientific data that’s beginning to arise, from reputable bodies all over the world. In this article, two of citations are PNAS. But your sources are sadly out of date. June 2013 is one thing, but to cite an 18-month old report is another and denies the ongoing, dynamic, and escalating problem. There is plenty of recent, well-grounded and tested scientific information becoming available. You just have to dig a little deeper.
Here’s a presentation that gives more than enough information, specifically about cesium 137. If I remember correctly, the author stated that only 1/3 of ONE GRAM of cesium 137 is necessary to render 1 square mile atomically poisonous – essentially uninhabitable. It’s a water soluble molecule that is attracted to potassium, with a half life of 30 years. It’s estimated that it will be 180-320 years before land and water will completely abated of the particle. Cesium 137 is poisonous at the atomic level. This is what your sources are not talking about. You should watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6FnRTVzthc&feature=share
The Fukushima Daichi nuclear disaster is not your typical life event or even one of basic elevated importance – like news about gang violence, an economic downturn, a tornado ripping through a town and killing lots of people, or even the recent typhoon in the Philippines. Human beings will recover from all of those events. This is an urgent critical matter of the highest importance that threatens human survival mope than anything in the history of the planet. At least people talked about Hiroshima and other events. Those with public credibility have a responsibility to do their homework and share it appropriately. Your sources lack current information, two of three come from the same place, they lack in breadth of information and context, and there are too few sources to make such a decision. To simply say, “Well, this source says it’s OK and my neighbor is not sick, so I think it’s OK” – which is the tone of your article, isn’t enough.
I implore you to look deeper into some of the issues here before you speak. Your word carries a lot of weight.
Thanks!
Is it true that Cesium 134 radiation is more toxic than say plutonium and some of the other radioactive materials that can be found in and around nuclear disaster sites?
If the pacific ocean fish are safe to eat, what do you think accounts for the rash of walrus, sea lion and polar bear deaths currently in the Northwest Pacific?
Some things are quite wrong in this others fairly correct. There IS radiation from Fukushima being found in Pacific fish off the US west coast. Both some commercial fish testing and the US Dept of Energy have found levels that can be tied to Fukushima radiation in US coast Pacific fish The levels are not high like those being found in certain parts of Japan right now. There is also a considerable plume of radiation crossing the Pacific and expected to reach US shores in 2013-2014 and to continue for some time. The initial estimates of the plume suggested levels would reach those from the 1960’s due to atomic bomb testing. (about 30 bq/m2). But the plant has been leaking ever since and a considerable amount at that. So these estimates may be under estimating this. It will become more important for comprehensive fish testing to take place now and for future years to assure we catch any problem before it becomes severe so people can avoid those types of fish or fishing location.
The notions mentioned to assure people how safe the fish supply is are all rather incorrect even thought they have been uttered by supposed experts and government officials. The “banana equivalent” is very wrong. This is a good brief explanation about why the banana dose is a bad comparison.
http://boingboing.net/2010/08/27/bananas-are-radioact.html
The air plane flight is also a bad comparison when talking about food. Cosmic radiation is quite different than types of artificial radiation. It is also external radiation. This is considerably different than internal radiation you get by eating contaminated food. Internal radiation can do considerably more damage and certain types of internal radiation can stay in your body as long as you live.
The “safe” comparisons about how much is safe to consume. If this is based on the US INTERVENTION level of around 1000 bq/kg that is not a safe level. That is the level where the US govt will remove foods from the market. It is not a guarantee of safety. There have been a couple of public relations people from the FDA citing this incorrectly. 1000 bq/kg of contaminated food is not safe to be consuming on a regular basis. The US FDA did some food testing in 2011 but it was all either pre-disaster foods or foods that could not be identified as coming from the known contaminated areas (when they tested imports). USDA and NOAA declared there to be no issue in 2011 and refuse to do any testing.
There is some of the independent US food testing here
http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=11795
This is US DOE testing of fish and plant life in Alaska. They did find contaminated fish but due to the early testing after the disaster they assume it to be due to air carried fallout rather than the sea contamination that is happening now.
http://www.lm.doe.gov/Amchitka/S08833_Biological_Monitoring.pdf
Until there is some comprehensive (and honest) testing going on I am avoiding Pacific seafood more out of an abundance of caution because we do not know.
From the article linked below, “Deformities are showing up in Japanese butterflies. The once-thriving fishing industry near the plant has been shut down. Dozens of species have been labeled too radioactive to eat.”
Chris, oh Chris, where are you??? It’s time to come clean with your readers/patients.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:COBsN4nhqMoJ:abclocal.go.com/kgo/story%3Fsection%3Dnews/state%26id%3D9323780+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=ubuntu
I actually do think it’s strange that this story is only available in google cache. The original story (published just a few days ago) was taken down from it’s original location at http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/state&id=9323780
I filled out that inquiry form there on the 404 page because it seems it’s not common practice to remove stories.
Here is more info coming out regarding Fukushima. From this article, Dr. Shigeru Mita states, “If at all possible, I would like them to move away from East Japan.”
Full article here:
http://www.save-children-from-radiation.org/2013/11/11/title-dr-shigeru-mita-addresses-the-need-of-blood-examination-among-children-in-the-kanto-area/
Chris Kresser, it’s time to redact your original post. Your readers lives are at risk following your advice. Swallow your pride and amend your recommendation about pacific fish. Now is the time.
I’m curious is Chris has a response to this very recent article: http://fairewinds.org/media/in-the-news/fish-data-belie-japans-claims-fukushima
Chris has obviously abandoned this post as he has abandoned his clients/readers on good advice/sound judgement.
What a bunch of angry little trolls. I’m glad Chris hasn’t taken the bait. He’s stated his opinion–if you disagree, why don’t you start your own blog???
Chris’s opinion was based on articles from 2011, whereas we are using much more recent information.
I’m skeptical myself and think dissenting opinions are appropriate in the comments section. I just don’t understand why people are attacking him. He stated his opinion and the bases for it. I don’t think anyone reading his blog is under the misapprehension that he is an expert on nuclear radiation. Why the abuse?
Mary, its not about being an expert on nuclear radiation. The point of the “abuse” is because there is lots of dis-information and media silence (including suppression of peer reviewed articles/studies) on this topic. People turn to Chris for truth in health. His “opinion” goes against all the articles people are posting on here AND it goes against common sense. Truth is all that matters with a topic as serious as this. Chris is promoting lies by not re-evaluating the situation. Do you trust a liar with your health?
Silas. Please consider that Chris has already done a service by brining this issue to everyones’ attention. And as evidenced above, most readers can think for themselves and draw their own conclusions about what’s right for them. I tend to agree with Chris that there’s no smoking gun at this point. However I personally think that’s more due to a lack of data we’d have from adequate testing. So leveling harsh condemnations at Chris isn’t going to change his opinion. Your energy would be better spent advocating for expanded testing of our food supply.
I second that, Silas. Thanks!
Here are some quotes from your link:
‘About 800 people worldwide will get cancer from radiation due to Fukushima in fish eaten to date, according to Georgia Straight calculations. The Straight results relied on a widely used cancer-risk formula developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as well as radiation levels in 33,000 fish tested by the Japanese Fisheries Agency.
Half the cancers will be fatal. About 500 will be in Japan; 75 will be due to Japanese fish exports to other countries; and 225 will be from fishing in the Pacific by nations other than Japan.
And that’s likely only a small part of the actual long-term cancer impacts from eating the fish. Two nuclear experts who saw the Straight’s figures said the real cancer toll could be 100 times higher—or 80,000 cancers.
“The potential numbers could be two orders of magnitude [100 times] higher than your numbers,” Daniel Hirsch, a nuclear-policy lecturer at the University of California at Santa Cruz, said in a phone interview. “Hundreds of cancers are nothing to sneeze at, and it is a fraction of what I suspect the total will be.”
‘Closer to home, the B.C. Centre for Disease Control long ago dismissed concerns about Fukushima’s impacts here. “There is no health risk from radiation from the nuclear-power plants in Japan to people in B.C.,” it said in a statement in March 2011.
“At Fukushima, [the reactor’s] design is great. No human error. Natural disaster,” said Abderrachid Zitouni, the BCCDC’s radiation specialist, explaining the disaster’s cause during a talk to B.C. medical professionals in April 2011. He delivered a PowerPoint presentation that said the accident had involved only a “minor release” of radiation with a “local impact only”.
(In fact, a Japanese parliamentary commission last year called Fukushima “a profoundly man-made disaster—that could and should have been foreseen and prevented”, blaming “a multitude of errors” and “ignorance and arrogance unforgivable for anyone or any organization that deals with nuclear power”.)
Says a lot about the British Columbia CDC; and of course, the US CDC is just as bad, covering up the realiity of ‘Morgellons’.
People should listen to a Harvard world-renowned nuclear expert about the radiation issues… Dr Helen Caldicott knows her stuff. I’d LOVE for her to review this dis-informative article, for the sake of the health of everyone misled by it!!!!!
I was glad to read this today, since my daughter sent me the following link because she knows how much I adore sushi and fish. I was just googling “what fis is safe to eat” and came across your post. Thanks for this. Would you kindly look at this post, and tell me what you think? Thanks!
http://www.undergroundhealth.com/28-signs-that-the-west-coast-is-being-absolutely-fried-with-nuclear-radiation-from-fukushima/
The viral scare pieces going around about how Fukushima radiation is killing everyone and everything in the Pacific and West Coast are absolute garbage. They’re supported by false claims and bad science and were designed to do nothing but frighten people.
Pacific Ocean fish are perfectly safe to eat: http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/09/02/are-your-days-of-eating-pacific-ocean-fish-really-over/
The west coast is NOT being fried by Fukushima raditation: http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/10/28/more-fukushima-scaremongering-debunked/
Wow. You’re just as brain-washed as Chris. The articles you posted really made me feel all better about the tons of radiation leaking into the ocean. {sarcasm} The only truth to your post is that the info IS going around the internet. Where is the government addressing this issue? Oh that’s right, they’re doing what they always do — deceive. Seems like you’re right there with them. Good try Mike.
I’m thinking the Mike who posted these links is the same Mike who authored the blog posts. At first the arguments seemed reassuring, but then I read the comments section where the author gets his hat handed to him by some actual physicists, (esp. Mike Wofsey). Final verdict: less reassured than before reading the article.
Thanks for mentioning Mike Wofsey. That was a very important thread to read on his comments. Hopefully others will also read it. Wish that kind of discussion could be duplicated here. It needs high readership.
There is one thing to be said about eating Pacific seafood: you are likely in the short term to save money on electricity, as you’ll be glowing so much you won’t need light bulbs.
Well … I was just making out a grocery list, and now I’m not sure what to do … I love tuna (which I’ve only just stopped eating … still have 2 cans in the cupboard and not sure what to do with them … check them at 2 a.m. to see if they are glowing?) and I also like cod and halibut and, occasionally, salmon. Chris, I appreciate your column and I’m going to subscribe, but I have to admit, I am increasingly worried about the after-effects of Fukushima. I’m also very skeptical about the information we’re getting, precisely because Tepco and the Japanese government are (as far as I know) lying to their own people about it. If that is so, I don’t think they would hesitate for a moment to lie to the rest of the world. Plus after 2.5 years of dicking around like the Three Stooges, they are still refusing to call for international help. And no, I don’t trust politicians from other governments (including my own — Stephen Harper is known to be trying to muzzle scientists except where their findings promote business) to be any more forthcoming than Japan’s politicians.
So I guess I’m wondering: does anybody have any ideas of ANY fish that is likely to be safe to eat?
Lynn, maybe fish from the southern portion of the Atlantic or aquaponics. My sister is a self described pescatarian, and she won’t touch ANY fish now unless its from the above.
dear all yes everybody lies if there is some gain but the truth is this planet was so polluted before first human come on stage, our problem is knowledge and if we apply all our wisdom whats good whats bad for us we practicaly should not be here any more wiped out by pollution ,but irony is there is more of us then ever before so final finding are pollution must be good for us otherwise they would not chemtrails us.open another can of tuna and have some chicken feed widh arsenic some pork with traces of banned chemicals and glass of good red vine grown on battlefields where phosphorus rich soils from tens of thousands fallen soldiers gives best vine CHEERS
Chris, this isn’t peer-reviewed but it is TRUTH. You should try spreading truth sometimes and not relying on data that can be fabricated to appeal to the masses. Just a thought.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/radioactive-debris-on-pacific-ocean-fukushima-radiation-is-tearing-up-the-west-coast-of-the-us-and-canada/5355919