The headline drew plenty of attention: “Check your freezer: FDA expands recall on radioactive frozen shrimp.”
That was from the Los Angeles Times.
There were plenty more like it.
And while the FDA did recall the shrimp, a Certified Health Physicist (CHP) would have immediately recognized that the radiological findings required context the public never received.
The real issue wasn’t just the shrimp. It was a gap in communication and understanding.
A gap CHPs are uniquely qualified to fill.
Here’s why.
What Was Actually Found
The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) reportedly detected a trace amount of cesium-137 (Cs-137), a man‑made radioactive isotope, in a shipment of frozen shrimp from an Indonesian seafood processor.
The measured activity, about 68 becquerels per kilogram (Bq/kg), was well below the FDA’s Derived Intervention Level (DIL) of 1,200 Bq/kg for Cs-134/Cs-137 combined.
Detectable? Yes.
Dangerous? No.
By definition, contamination is when radioactive material is present where it shouldn’t be. For example, bananas naturally contain small amounts of radioactivity because potassium-40 belongs there. Cesium-137, however, does not belong in shrimp, so its presence is considered contamination.
And beyond the radiological finding, the FDA issued the recall because the product violated food-safety standards related to sanitation.
So the shrimp was contaminated. But it was not a radioactive health hazard.
To put the minimal dose in perspective: eating one full kilogram of this shrimp would have resulted in about 0.005 millisieverts (mSv). That’s less than an eighth of what you receive on a cross-country flight.
“The easy-to-detect presence of cesium-137 was an indicator to the FDA that other hard-to-detect contaminants may be present from unsanitary conditions at the plant. I think FDA made the right decision with the recall,” says Dan Sowers, CHP, an Instructor with NV5 Dade Moeller Training Academy.
One catch.
“But they never updated the messaging to reflect this,” he added. “The confusing messaging of cesium-137, including health effects, present at 17 times below their derived intervention still remains.”
The public deserved that context. They didn’t get it.
CHPs turn these numbers into context, helping people distinguish between detection and danger—and between what’s expected and what’s not.
How This Became Bigger Than Shrimp
The discovery of Cs-137 didn’t stop at the shrimp recall. It led Indonesian authorities to identify a broader source of contamination that had also affected other products, including cloves and footwear.
This triggered:
- Decontamination efforts in affected residential and industrial areas.
- Investigations into processing and handling practices at facilities exporting goods.
- The implementation of enhanced radiation screening for imported scrap metal and recycled materials.
In that sense, the original detection worked exactly as it should: it prompted an investigation, uncovered a broader issue and led to improved safeguards.
But for the American public, lacking context, it became another confusing headline.
CHPs help prevent that confusion.
Why We Need More CHPs
The FDA acted appropriately. It’s role is to ensure potentially contaminated products do not reach consumers and to investigate any irregularities.
The concern is the public lacked the expert interpretation needed to understand what was found.
Here’s where CHPs come in.
- Public Communication Needs: A big one here. Whenever radiation shows up in the news—from airport scanners to nuclear energy to medical diagnostics—public understanding often lags. CHPs serve as translators between technical experts, regulators, and communities. They make complex data meaningful and help maintain trust.
- Expanding Use of Radiation Across Industries: Radiation is used in medicine, energy, food processing, industrial gauges, cargo scanning, research and space exploration. Every one of these industries needs radiation experts.
- Retirement and Workforce Gaps: The CHP workforce is aging. Many senior health physicists who entered the field between the 1970s and 1990s are retiring or nearing that milestone, while fewer students are entering specialized radiation protection programs. As a result, expertise is thinning at a time when demand is growing.
- Emergency Preparedness: In the rare event of an incident involving radiological materials—industrial, medical or environmental, among others—trained CHPs are essential. They know how to measure exposure, recommend protective actions and communicate risk calmly and accurately. Their presence can prevent confusion and panic during response efforts.
- Regulatory and Corporate Compliance: Organizations that use radioactive materials or equipment must comply with federal and state safety regulations. CHPs ensure that operations stay within those standards. Their expertise helps avoid violations, improve safety culture and guide leadership through technical audits.
- Education and Training: CHPs also teach—whether it’s training radiation workers, advising medical staff or mentoring future professionals. More CHPs mean more capacity to sustain and expand radiation literacy across industries.
How CHPs Can Strengthen Communication in the Next Radiological Event
Incidents like the shrimp recall will happen again. When they do, organizations need to be prepared not only with accurate data, but with the context that makes it meaningful.
CHPs are more than radiation safety officers. They meet rigorous standards set by the American Board of Health Physics (ABHP) and bring expertise in analysis, interpretation and communication.
Equally important, they work closely with communicators, scientists, risk managers and leadership to ensure that monitoring results are clearly explained and properly understood. They help convey when systems are functioning as intended, when findings are well below thresholds of concern and when follow-up is appropriate.
That is the essence of transparency.
Investing in more CHPs strengthens communication, builds public trust and supports a workforce that can explain not only what was detected, but what it means.
When people understand the difference between minor detections and genuine risk, they are less likely to equate every finding with immediate danger.