|
?:reviewBody
|
-
In February 2016, a series of photos purportedly showing the ill effects that the Fukushima nuclear disaster had on marine life was widely shared on social media. A popular Facebook post, which appeared to be a rewrite of an article published by web site Superstation95 in October 2015, reported that North Americans were eating seafood filled with cancerous tumors: While the Daiichi meltdowns and subsequent radiation releases did have a major effect on aquatic life, these photos do not illustrate those effects. For instance, the lead photo of the article, purportedly showing the bloody and cancerous tumors caused by nuclear radiation, was actually taken in 2004, years before the Fukushima disaster started leaking radiation into the sea:Superstation 95 touted these images as undeniable proof of Fukushima's effect on seafood: The article then shows a picture of cancerous tumors in salmon purportedly linked to a rise in nuclear radiation in oceans:Again, however, the above-displayed image was taken prior to the Fukushima disaster. The image also does not show cancerous tumors, or any type of tumor at all. Instead, it was lifted from Wikipedia, and shows a salmon infected with with Henneguya salminicola, a myxosporean parasite. Another misleading photo featured University of Alberta scientist David Schindler holding a fish with a growth. The article reported that this image depicted a fish showing classic signs of radiation-caused cancerous tumors, but Schindler said that the fish was taken from the Athabasca River watershed, which is downstream from an oil sands industrial development — not a nuclear plant: In addition to spreading misinformation about the effects that the Fukushima disaster had on marine life, Superstation95 attempted to revive a long-debunked rumor that sharks don't get cancer:The above-displayed image was taken in 2013, and while it was an unusual sight -— the first time a tumor was spotted on a great white shark — there is no evidence that the tumor was caused by radiation from Fukushima or anywhere else. Rachel Robbins, shark biologist at the Fox Shark Research Foundation who studied the animal, said that while the cause of the tumor was unknown, industrial pollutants may have been a contributing factor: Another misleading photo used to illustrate the effects of nuclear radiation featured a coral trout with skin cancer:The web site reports that the only explanation for a fish getting human-like skin cancer is exposure to radiation. While that may be technically true, the researchers who discovered the above-displayed fish told Live Science that the fish probably got skin cancer due to UV radiation, not nuclear radiation: The following images were presented with little to no explanation, although they were, presumably, included in the article in order to imply to readers that these animals had all been victims of the Fukushima disaster:The above photograph of shrimp was taken in 2012 in the Gulf of Mexico, and was lifted from an Al Jazeera story about the effects of the BP oil spill.This photo of a starfish was taken in 2006 — long before the Fukushima disaster — and appears on a Wikipedia page.This photo of a juvenile male Northern Fur Seal was taken in 2009 — again, before the Fukushima disaster — and has nothing to do with radiation. According to Getty, the image shows combat wounds. This photo of a polar bear with alopecia was taken in Alaska in 2012. While researchers said that this disease has been found in both wild and captive animals, they do not know the cause. The United States Geological Survey speculated that the lesions may have been caused by numerous factors, including man-made and natural biotoxins, radiation, contaminants, auto-immune diseases, nutritional, hormonal and environmental factors. However, SuperStation95 did use one photo that was directly tied to the radiation leaked from the Fukushima power plant. In August 2011, researchers detected cesium-137 and cesium-134 in 15 tuna caught off the coast of California: While it's true that the above-displayed bluefin tuna did show signs of radiation from Fukushima, the study's author, Daniel Madigan, said that the levels did not come close to exceeding safety limits: The article published by Superstation95 on 15 October 2015 (and subsequent posts on social media) used half-truths, misleading statistics, and unrelated photos in order to convince its readers that they had been ingesting radioactive seafood. While the Fukushima disaster certainly had effects on the environment and marine life, they are not adequately demonstrated by the photographs circulating in social media, nor by Superstation95.
(en)
|
![[This page as RDF]](http://data.gesis.org/claimskg/static/rdf-icon.gif){kind=icon}