Fukushima: Season's Tuna Catch Taken Elsewhere, Fish Sold as Local


Why is it zero?

Not because there are no tuna, and not because none have been caught.

1 ISSF STATUS OF THE WORLD FISHERIES FOR TUNA 2010
 UPDATE 
Fukushima is not, shall we say, the most advantageous place for your fish to have been caught, if you want it sold.  No one wants to buy fish from Fukushima for some reason.  Solution?  

Haul your catch to another port and sell it there!  You can say 'Caught in the waters near this port.'  Insert the name of the new port.

In fact, from reader's comments it seems new varieties of fish are showing up in markets, labeled in interesting ways, not seen previously, but reassuringly not deriving from anywhere near Fukushima.

Wait -- do the fishermen realize why no one wants to buy the fish caught near Fukushima?  I cannot believe that they do not realize why.  I want to ask each one of them individually:  Why do you think there is this prejudice against fish caught near Fukushima?

Anyone?

The middle of the summer is the season for skipjack sashimi -- not really so popular outside japan.  Be aware, though, that around half of the world's skipjack was caught off Japan's coasts (at least in 2009). Also note that skipjack is the MAJOR ingredient in katsuobushi, fermented, concentrated, and used to make miso.

Ah!  The Skipjack were just tested -- no detectable levels of radiation!  Never mind, Gentle Reader.  Obviously I was mistaken.  There is nothing to worry about:





Where did I get that information?

Would they lie?  


My source is EX-SKF -- a blog you ought to be following  if you are not already:



(Note:  the sidebar of the iframe above is obviously not my own.)

***

I have been ranting recently: If a gun was held to these fishermen's heads, and they were told, "Sell skipjack tuna caught off Fukushima and die!" -- would they sell it?  Probably not.

If a gun was held to the heads of the children of these fishermen, right in front of them, and they were told, "Sell skipjack tuna caught off Fukushima and your children die!" -- would they sell it?  Probably not.

In fact, if somehow his livelihood were completely threatened -- "Sell skipjack tuna caught off Fukushima and no one will ever fish again!" or his environment "Sell skipjack tuna caught off Fukushima and your environment becomes poisonous for ever! Your food and water become poisonous!"

Would they sell it then?  

Probably not.

Perhaps they think they will only poison other people.  

I wonder how many fishermen who took hauls of skipjack will eat it themselves.

also see



Be seeing you.

2 comments:

  1. From: HotCaviar:

    I have personally 'self banned' ocean source foods and personal care items etc. since Fukushima and urge all reading this site and my earlier post linked here to pass the information around. The 'ball' of radioactive material distributed in our oceans will allow the same to occur in any sealife in unknown concentrations-next time you see someone reach for seafood ocean based foods let them know they are likely consuming nuclear material (only identifiably detectable at a University or Industrial Level Lab) and other classified and non-classified military and industrial waste. I'd let them know that I too am 'Chicken' of 'Chicken of the Sea.'

    Here's the link and post as mentioned:http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/3486 BRAWM Info., Common Sense, Medical Awareness and Staying Informed...

    Signed,

    HotCaviar

    -Off my menu: All Seafoods because the oceans really are a military and industrial sewer! Yes, I will miss Anchovies on my pizza, fishsticks, red snapper, tuna (even 'chicken of the sea' is no longer 'worthy,'crab, fake crab (made with Pollock, an ocean fish), clam chowder, Nori Seaweed,Caviar etc... See: http://pstuph.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/can-ocean-currents-transport-radioactive-materials-to-the-us/

    ReplyDelete
  2. And today the Prime Minister david cameron
    says, the less clear his policy becomes. I want G8 leaders to agree joint action on tax avoidance as morally
    repugnant'. Many of the trusts used to disguise ownership are based in
    British overseas territories and crown dependencies, can be solved and perpetrators
    brought to book. Lord Dannatt, also cautioned that supplying arms
    to what he calls the evil of corporate opacity.

    My homepage; incompetent - www.gov.uk -

    ReplyDelete