Fuskushima Radiation May Help Scientists Track Wildlife

Cesium from Fukushima may help scientists track wildlife

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Traces of radiation from Japan's earthquake-damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant are showing up in the muscles of bluefin tuna off California. Although this sounds like bad news, the levels are too low to harm humans or fish but just high enough to help conservation scientists track and protect the overfished species.

Last spring Dan Madigan, a doctoral student at Stanford University, and his colleagues found traces of cesium 137 and cesium 134 in the flesh of bluefin tuna caught off the San Diego coast, which the fish probably picked up by feeding on contaminated plankton and small fish near Japan. They then devised a way of using the half-life of radioactive isotopes to study the fish. Cesium 134 has a half-life of 2.1 years; cesium 137 has a half-life of 30.1 years. The scientists calculated the ratio of the two isotopes in each fish to see if it would reflect how recently the migrants had arrived. (A higher ratio of 134 to 137 would indicate a more recent immigrant.)

The results jibed with what scientists knew about the fish: Pacific bluefin spawn in waters surrounding Japan and spend the first year of their lives foraging there before either staying put or migrating to the California coast to fatten up for mating. Madigan's team found that all fish aged 1.6 years or younger were migrants and that the trip from Japan had taken around two months, which validated their approach. They reported their results in Environmental Science & Technology in March.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The new technique shows promise for tracking the movement of other Pacific migratory species, including whales, turtles and sharks. Although cesium 134 levels will soon be too low to be useful, Madigan's team has correlated cesium levels with those of longer-lived stable isotopes such as carbon and nitrogen so that researchers will be able to use them as proxies. “One method is finite, and one is infinite,” Madigan says. “Once you've hammered down the relationship, you can just use the infinite one in the future.”

About Marissa Fessenden

Marissa is a freelance science journalist in Bozeman, Montana. She was an editorial intern with Scientific American from June 2012 through June 2013. Follow on Twitter @marisfessenden

More by Marissa Fessenden
Scientific American Magazine Vol 308 Issue 5This article was published with the title “Tailing Tuna” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 308 No. 5 (), p. 27
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0513-27a

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe