Japan sets new radiation safety level for seafood

whoosh

Cooler King
Staff member
Premium Supporter
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Location
England
Japan's government set its first radiation safety standards for fish today after its tsunami-ravaged nuclear plant reported radioactive contamination in nearby seawater measuring at several million times the legal limit.

The plant operator insisted that the radiation will rapidly disperse and that it poses no immediate danger, but an expert said exposure to the highly concentrated levels near the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant could cause immediate injury and that the leaks could result in residual contamination of the sea in the area.

The new levels coupled with reports that radiation was building up in fish led the government to create an acceptable radiation standard for fish for the first time, and officials said it could change depending on circumstances. Some fish caught on Friday off Japan's coastal waters would have exceeded the new limit.

"Even if the government says the fish is safe, people won't want to buy seafood from Fukushima," said Ichiro Yamagata, a fisherman who used to live within sight of the nuclear plant and has since fled to a shelter in Tokyo.

"We probably can't fish there for several years," he said.

India announced today that it is halting food imports from Japan. Few countries have gone so far, but India's three-month ban reflected the unease the nuclear crisis generates — both in consumers confused about radiation and among Japan's fishermen fearing collapse of their business.
Japan sets new radiation safety level for seafood - Asia, World - The Independent
 
There is no safe dose of radiation.

We do not x-ray pregnant women.

Any detectable fallout can kill.

With erratic radiation spikes, major air and water emissions and at least three reactors and waste pools in serious danger at Fukushima, we must prepare for the worst.

When you hear the terms “safe” and “insignificant” in reference to radioactive fallout, ask yourself: ”Safe to whom”? ”Insignificant for which of us?”
 
Back
Top Bottom