EMERGING CONCERNS - Marine Pollution: What Everyone Needs to Know - page 138

designated zones; ensuring that explosives are not detonated
when animals are detected within a certain distance; imple-
menting a stranding response plan with a shutdown provi-
sion in certain circumstances; allowing the navy to contribute
in-kind services to NOAA Fisheries if the agency has to con-
duct a stranding response and investigation; and using spe-
cific mitigation measures to reduce effects on North Atlantic
right whales.
Are there concerns about radioactivity in the marine
environment?
Concerns about radioactivity were greatly reduced after the
nuclear test ban treaties several decades ago. Nevertheless,
there have been many incidents in which radioactive material
has been dumped or discharged into the oceans, accidentally
or on purpose. A British nuclear fuels plant has repeatedly
released radioactive waste into the Irish Sea, a French nuclear
reprocessing plant has discharged radioactivity into the
English Channel, and the Soviets dumped large amounts of
radioactive material into the Arctic Ocean and Barents Sea.
However, it took the meltdown of the Fukushima plant in
Japan following the March 2011 earthquake to reawaken con-
cerns about radioactivity in the ocean, including levels in fish
near Japan as well as in migratory fish that could carry radioac-
tivity with them across the ocean. Both short-lived radioactive
elements, such as iodine-131 (with a half-life of eight days) and
longer-lived elements such as cesium (Cs)-137 (with a half-life
of 30 years) can be absorbed by phytoplankton, zooplankton,
kelp, and other marine life and move up the food chain into
fish, marine mammals, and humans. Studies show that radio-
active material moves with ocean currents, is deposited in
marine sediments, and moves up the marine food web. Once
taken up by the body it gets into the bloodstream, from which
it is deposited in bones and other tissues, potentially causing
genetic damage or cancer. Depending on the chemical form