It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Radiation in the fish, November data

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 10:19 AM
These are pretty high percentages in my opinion

Cesium was especially prevalent in certain of the species:

73 per cent of mackerel tested
91 per cent of the halibut
92 per cent of the sardines
93 per cent of the tuna and eel
94 per cent of the cod and anchovies
100 per cent of the carp, seaweed, shark and monkfish

Some of the fish were caught in Japanese coastal waters. Other catches were made hundreds of kilometres away in the open ocean. Read more:

One of those studies found that fish and crustaceans caught in the vicinity of Fukushima in late March had 10,000 times more than so-called safe levels of radiation. The study, published last May in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, also said macroalgae had 19,000 times the safe level. Those levels were measured before the Japanese utility that runs the crippled nuclear plant dumped 11,000 tonnes of radioactive water into the Pacific in April and additional leaks that have released hundreds of tonnes more. But since that early study, little research has been published on the topic. Read more:

Continuing radiation leaks from Fukushima could be to blame, he said. Another culprit, he said, may be a phenomenon called biomagnification –the tendency for radiation concentrations to increase in species that are farther up the food chain. Read more:

Ooohhh... we are at the top of the food chain

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 12:23 AM
reply to post by tinker9917

It's interesting to see that none (really none) of our MSM here in Germany tells us about these tests. You can even see that some of the big companies (known for quality - at least we believed that) try everything to hide the FAO (areo of fishing). A few month ago they still had FAO 61 (Japan) written o their package. A few month later it's just a code with a note to see the coding on their website. And now the just had a barcode and a note to get an iPhone app to see the FAO.

But in my opinion every person is responsible for his own live and the data/warnings are available. Soif you don't see any FAO number on a package including fish or if the FAO number is 61 or 67 you should think twice if you want to eat that. I even stopped buying everything with a 6.. or 7.. FAO number. And if it's not on the package in clear text I avoid the company for the rest of my life as they try to cheat me.

edit on 16-1-2012 by UnixFE because: (no reason given)

new topics

log in