It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
game over man
...... all tuna fish are full of radiation, blah blah blah have all been debunked
Fisher says they weren't actually worried about radioactive cesium as a health risk. They tested the flesh, "mostly just to see if it we could detect it, and we were quite surprised, I must say. We did not expect to see this radioactivity retained by the fish during their trans-Pacific voyage, which we estimates takes from three to four months."
Yes, radiation in seafood seems scary. But here's the catch (if you pardon the expression). Tuna, like every other food on the planet, already contains naturally occurring radiation. It has potassium-40 and polonium-210. It always has and it always will. In addition, seafood in general contains a trace of cesium-137 left over from nuclear weapons testing in the 1950s and 1960s.
So the question is, how much more radiation did these particular tuna fish contain? The answer is: A trivial amount. In fact, radiation from the cesium is 30 times less than the radiation that's already in the fish naturally in the form of potassium-40, according to the research paper. And the natural polonium-210 packs a radiation dose 200 times larger than the dose from the cesium.
When contacted about its testing of domestically caught seafood, an FDA spokesman responded in an email, saying that “the FDA is not aware of any evidence suggesting that the domestic seafood catch contains harmful levels of radiation.” He further referenced a 2012 study from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which found levels of cesium-137 and cesium-134 in bluefin tuna to be, according to an email from the FDA, “roughly 300 times lower than levels that would prompt FDA to investigate further to determine if there were a health concern.”
In fact, the most widely-accepted model suggests that, in terms of affecting most people, low-level background radiation is the most hazardous source of radiation.
raymundoko
reply to post by jrod
Your biggest problem, as with others here, is you think that NO RADIATION IS SAFE RADIATION! When you are literally bombarded with very high amounts of radiation every day...
"In fact, the most widely-accepted model suggests that, in terms of affecting most people, low-level background radiation is the most hazardous source of radiation."
In fact, the most widely-accepted model suggests that, in terms of affecting most people, low-level background radiation is the most hazardous source of radiation.
raymundoko
reply to post by RickinVa
I don't know why you keep trying to play word games with diluted. The scientific word for what happens is dilute...
e360.yale.edu...
So yes, the pacific ocean is diluting the radiation.
RickinVa
raymundoko
reply to post by RickinVa
I don't know why you keep trying to play word games with diluted. The scientific word for what happens is dilute...
e360.yale.edu...
So yes, the pacific ocean is diluting the radiation.