CA Dept of Health 4th Qtr Air & Milk Testing Results
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/Documents/CDPH-RHB-RadReport-2011-4thQ.pdf
California Dept. Of Public Health just released its 2011 4th Quarter Radiation Monitoring Report which tested air samples and milk from nine locations stretching the state's length. The findings confirm the recently released USGS air filter testing results finding Los Angeles to have been heavily slammed with Cs137 (and Cs134 per USGS).
Yay for LA.... we win!!!
MadMama
EPA MCL 3 picocuries/ltr, not 33,000 picocuries as this says!!!
EPA's MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level) = 3.0 pCi/liter (approximately a quart or a little over 4 cups)
The CDPH 4th quarter report
The CDPH 4th quarter report is citing the FDA's Derived Intervention Level, not the EPA's. The FDA's levels are intended for a one-time exposure, while the EPA's are intended to be a safe threshold for long-term exposure.
Here's a great explanation of the discrepancy, including a statement from the FDA that was published last April:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2011/04/14/why-does-fda-tolerate...
Obviously the contamination levels from Fukushima should be considered a long term exposure. They are stable and rising at one year and counting. The levels of cesium contamination from Chernobyl have not decreased as originally expected, but are still relatively stable. It stands to reason we can expect the same persistence. Not to forget, this is only milk that we're discussing. Clearly we are being exposed at different levels by consuming all of our domestic foodstuffs (veggies, fruit, meats), so we will begin to see bioaccumulation occur.
Yes, these are still "small," amounts which represent a "minor" risk to public health, that is to say to the population in total. However, these numbers will result in a certain increase in cancers in some unlucky people, and that is simply morally unacceptable, given the unnecessary source.
The primary lesson is, if we have this small but measurable exposure here in the US, over 5500 miles away (San Luis Obispo, where the CDPH milk was sourced) from the Fukushima meltdowns/explosions, then shouldn't we be paying attention to the poor people in closer proximity who have been heavily contaminated by these nuclear power plant failures, and learn from their loss and their present and future suffering. Most importantly, aren't we morally obligated to do everything we can to prevent the same from happening (God forbid) here at home?
MM
Thanks
Thanks for posting. Still the same level of cesium in the milk. Just lovely.
My best guess is that the 4th
My best guess is that the 4th quarter Los Angeles air sampling result detections for Cs137, alone in the state, are heavily attributable to the extremely dry and heavy winds we've had this entire winter re-suspending the significant fall-out that arrived (via extreme precipitation factors) in the initial March & April plumes. I think this re-suspension may also account somewhat for high beta readings that have been reported in Los Angeles area air filters of late.
So, thank you TEPCO and General Electric and IAEA and NRC and Japanese and complicit nuclear power country governments (USA tops the list) for taking shortcuts on safety and pursuing profit over public health which has bestowed upon Los Angeles, and the rest of the northern hemisphere, the gift that keeps on giving. We'll be gone long before the Cs137 (and other accompanying long-lived radioisotopes) will be. We Angelenos can look forward to a good lungful of Fukushima's finest every time the wind blows and the wildfires burn... for the next 300 years.
MM
Mother Nature
You can look forward to even more radiation exposure courtesy of good old Mother Nature
For all the hyping by the assorted pinheads decrying the radiation from Fukushima that BRAWM and all good scientists tell us is insignificant; there will still be the bulk of the radiation exposure that mankind has faced since life began on this planet, and that all comes from Mother Nature.
However, that doesn't stop those who "think" ( term used loosely ) with their politics instead of their brains from treating us to our daily dose of nonsense.
You can look forward to even
You can look forward to even more radiation exposure courtesy of the nasty old nuclear power industry.
Another meltdown could well happen in the USA, but this time the public now has Geiger counters and the Internet. This is new after Fukushima and is the public's response to an appalling media cover-up of the severity of that incident. It will in future be impossible for the nuclear power industry to cover up the evidence of widespread contamination after a meltdown because it will be mapped live, as it happens, on the internet.
This also happened in Europe
This also happened in Europe after Chernobyl.
The public has now created an extensive body of data documenting background soil and air measurements throughout the country. Of course since most purchased their geiger counters post-Fukushima, it has been difficult for private individuals to tell if their backgrounds are increased compared to pre-Fukushima, as a result of the fall-out. That will no longer be the case. The current background radiation levels are well documented and any increase because of a domestic nuclear accident will be easy to identify and prove.
Dear Anonymous: What type of
Dear Anonymous:
What type of politics are you asserting I think with?
Over the past several months "you" have called me an idiot, a pinhead, called me an anti-nuke, intended some sort of demeaning (weird) assumption about my politics, amongst other vile personal attacks. By your inability to engage in a civil discussion, "you" have shown yourself to be completely defensive and obviously insecure about the medical basis for your insistence that anthropomorphic radiation is not a risk even warranting public discussion!
Who the hell do you think you are?
I am a mother. You are clearly either not a parent, or you have lost all connection with the parental instinct to protect one's progeny and all future generations. It's part of the contract you know, protecting the children. This includes questioning sketchy science and an industry that claims their poison-spewing cash cows exist in the public's best interests. Follow the money, the conflicts of interest compel further investigation of said claims.
I am a tax-paying, POLITICALLY CONSERVATIVE citizen of this country. I have no idea what politics has to do with this; conservatives, liberals and libertarians all share this economy, this energy infrastructure, this air and this earth, this contamination, and are all equally vested in this critical nuclear debate (whether they realize it or not). One could never claim that the nuclear industry expansion is an example of free market action (a conservative ideal). It's simply an example of our system's decay. My education is not in science, I have a business degree and I understand and have faith in the profit-driven business model, bounded by personal responsibility and societal ethics. HOWEVER, what has been brought to my heretofore blissfully ignorant attention by the nuke industry's and government's behavior of the past annum is not an example of free markets and corporate responsibility. I have watched, to my absolute disillusionment, horror and disgust the most ARROGANT collusion and corruption as the international nuke industry has closed ranks in solidarity to whitewash the Fukushima accidents and catastrophic radiation releases. The US government and NRC have suppressed public access to critical information about levels of contamination that the US received, although that data was gathered by a system put in place to protect the public against just such an event, and paid for with public funds. Rather Uncle Sam has doled out paternalistic platitudes using subjective words such as "significant" and "immediate" in reference to any health threat, essentially negating their statements. The US public was denied access to data, gathered on their dime, that quantified the actual amount of radiation exposure their families received. The US public was entitled to said data with which they could have decided for themselves whether it was significant or required immediate action. Rather, the US government and corrupted media has deceived the public with pro-nuke propaganda and minimizing.
We do not have a fleet of nuclear reactors in our country because they are the most efficient, most economical, most productive and safest way to generate electricity. We have them because our system has been corrupted and this has allowed these wasteful, non-financeable, inefficient and dangerous monstrosities to be built, in the midst of our communities, no less! Fukushima is not an anomaly. This past year has redirected the public eye onto nuclear energy and we have witnessed several mishaps (heretofore occurring beneath the radar), equipment and security failures at nuclear power plants and fuel reprocessing facilities worldwide. The only reason this is allowed to continue is because the public is being deceived about the real risks by people like you, whose morality and social consciousness is being shown as questionable, if not sociopathic.
Case in point: this quote from a pro-nuke (including your Boice) panel reviewed in the NY Times: "Not that the additional radiation exposure won’t induce a few extra cases of cancer, the experts said, but these will be indistinguishable from the background rate of cancer, which will eventually strike about 41 out of every 100 people." http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/sizing-up-health-impacts-a-yea...
A few extra cases of cancer? Inflicting a carcinogen that will either destroy or mutate one's cells, one's very DNA resulting in cancers and genetic mutations is insignificant? It's not to me. It's unacceptable in the most absolute way. I accept unavoidable casualties in defense of one's home and family, community and country. However, this is a case of selling out our citizens by means of deception and bullying, for the profit of few and to the detriment of the many. Profit driven anthropomorphic radiation exposure is immoral. Poisoning our children and our shared planet is moronic and defies common sense and even basic survival instincts. Wishing something to be so, doesn't make it so, and when scientists are doing it we end up with goal-oriented science rather than knowledge expansion-oriented science, i.e., conflict of interest = bad science.
As to your oft-repeated chant that we receive more radiation exposure from Mother Nature, your logic eludes me. Mother Nature will also kill us all one day. That's also part of the deal. Just because poison oak grows naturally and I often encounter it while hiking, does not mean it is acceptable for you to pick some and rub it on my skin. Just because ionizing radiation exists in nature, does not mean that it is acceptable for you make a living from an industry that spews more of it onto my body. Just because Mother Nature will kill us all one day, does not mean that it is acceptable for you to hit me over the head with a rock and do it sooner.
I am a considerate person. I strive daily to abide by a social contract that my actions do not injure others and that I leave things better than I find them. I try to improve myself in many areas so I am prepared to make positive contributions when opportunities present themselves. I know that I have so much to learn, and participating in this forum (thank you, BRAWM) is one means of expanding my knowledge. You on the other hand, obviously believe yourself to be a member of some elite omniscient nuclear priesthood whose dictates supersede the common social mandate not to injure others. The arrogance! Not only do the industry and their owned experts and politicians blatantly low-ball health effects, but go on to characterize those casualties they admit will occur as INSIGNIFICANT.
Heads up nuclear sociopaths, "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."
MM
Thank you for standing up to
Thank you for standing up to our resident nuclear sociopath. Thank you for your compassion as a Mom that cares. Our bodies, our choices. As a considerate and compassionate person I applaud you.
Excellent essay, MM. Let me
Excellent essay, MM. Let me just add that, by definition, an inherited mutation is present in every cell of an offspring's body --- including the lymphocytes circulating in the blood. Some inherited mutations are so harmful that the recipient always dies before ever having any children. Because such mutations can not be passed along to the next generation, they never accumulate in the population. By contrast, most inherited mutations never cause early death, and so they can be passed along to the next generation. These are the mutations which accumulate in a population. People inherit so many mutations that it is an enormous task (now in its early stages) to figure out which inherited mutations produce harmful consequences and which ones are biologically inconsequential.
Now, if an offspring inherits a particular mutation, and the same mutation is not found in the lymphocytes of one of the parents, it means that the mutation occurred newly in a germ cell of a parent who did not inherit it from his or her ancestors. (Germ cells are the precursors of "eggs" and sperm.) Such a mutation in the offspring is called a "de novo" mutation. By contrast, if the same mutation is found in the lymphocytes of one of the parents, the offspring's mutation is called a "parental mutation" --- meaning that one parent has it in every cell. Many, many earlier generations may have had it in every cell, too.
Suppose that Paul has inherited three parental mutations called A,B,C, plus one de novo mutation called D. Suppose that his wife Mary has inherited three parental mutations E,F,G, plus one de novo mutation called H. Their daughter Alice may inherit A,B,D,H as parental mutations plus J as a de novo mutation, while her brother Edward may inherit C,E,F,G as parental mutations plus K as a de novo mutation. In this "scenario," de novo mutations keep adding to the inventory. And indeed, de novo mutations are the only possible source of humanity's accumulated inventory of inherited parental mutations.
The "mutation rate" in a population refers to the rate of de novo mutations per generation, and not to the population's very much higher incidence rate of parental mutations, already accumulated during 50 or 100 previous generations. The ratio of "de novo to parental" mutations is low, and this unfavorable "signal to noise ratio" has been an obstacle to conclusive epidemiologic research in this field.
One of the most important statements, in the world's professional literature on inherited afflictions, was published by the National Academy Press in 1991 (Neel 1991). The statement occurs in the "Orientation" section (at p.2) of the 518-page book entitled The Children of Atomic Bomb Survivors: A Genetic Study, edited by James V. Neel and William J. Schull --- two of the principal investigators in that study:
"In 1946, knowledge both of the doses of radiation sustained by survivors [of the atomic bombings] and the sensitivity of the mammalian genome to radiation was far inferior to the present situation. Nevertheless, as the preliminary data on post-atomic bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki emerged, it became very likely, given the number of survivors in the two cities and their probable gonadal doses, as well as the indicators one would be forced to pursue in any study, that even a very major effort would not yield a statistically significant difference between the children of survivors receiving increased radiation at the time of the bombings (ATB) and the children of suitable controls.
In other words, when the study was initiated, it was expected in advance that such a study would be inherently incapable of detecting the radiation-induction of inherited afflictions at any statistically significant level. The famous negative "findings" were built-in before the study began. And yet the negative findings were described in 1990 as follows --- in the highly influential journal Science:
"The [A-Bomb Study] researchers have found no evidence of any genetic effects at all in the children who were conceived after the blast --- no genetic diseases, cancer, or congenital abnormalities. And they have scoured the data with a fine-toothed comb, even scanning protein sequences for any telltale variation that would indicate a genetic mutation" (Roberts 1990).
Readers of the Roberts description could easily say "Case closed." But the researchers who did the work have quite a different view. Seven leading analysts in the A-Bomb Genetics Program wrote in 1990 (Neel 1990, p.1061):
"We take it as a given that the exposure [to the atomic bombs] resulted in mutations in some survivors of the atomic bombings, inasmuch as, without exception, under controlled laboratory conditions, ionizing radiation has produced mutations in every properly studied plant and animal species." And (Neel 1990, p.1063): "Again we reiterate the point that, unless humans differ from every other properly studied animal, as well as from plants, mutations must have been produced by this exposure." See also Para.7a.
These statements are emphatic warnings --- widely unknown or ignored --- that of course ionizing radiation (regardless of its source) contributes to inherited human afflictions.
This is very helpful. Thank
This is very helpful. Thank you.
MM
Preach it Mama!
I have been seeing the posts from anonymous about mother nature a lot lately and haven't had the time or the energy to reply.
You, woman, are my hero. As a fellow politically conservative, concerned mommy, I salute you. ;-)
Seriously, you just made my day.
To anonymous - just because mother nature dishes out a bunch of "natural" background radiation, doesn't mean we should compound the problem by piling on additional toxic, cancer-causing radiation. Once you figure out how I can make a choice between a dose from mother nature or a dose from the little einsteins at TEPCO, we can talk. Until then, the fact that mother nature dishes out so much radiation should make us all more cautious about adding to the load, not less!
citymom
MadMama - I concur. Wind is
MadMama - I concur. Wind is now a bad thing.
One thing I will note is that it looks like that filter had air ran through it for 3 months. Then they pull it and run the test. But all, or most, of the Cs-137 could have been deposited during any given wind event, and on other calm or less dusty days, none would be in the air.
My point is that their is some mitigation, which is to be extra careful when dust/wind conditions are bad.
BC 3/3/12
Re-suspension of Los Alamos
Re-suspension of Los Alamos released radioisotopes by wildfires and winds in multiple events: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/27/989080/-A-fourth-nuclear-crisis...
http://freedownload.is/txt/nucnewsnet-549435.html
Re-suspension of Chernobyl & Mayak released radioisotopes by wildfires and winds in multiple events:
http://www.oecd-nea.org/rp/chernobyl/c02.html
http://www.nuclearcrimes.org/russianfires.pdf
http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/iffn/iffn_40/07-Chernobyl-I.pdf
Re-suspension of Hanford released radioisotopes by wildfire and winds:
http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/rp/environmental/firerpt.pdf
Re-suspension of DU in Iraq by wildfire & wind (warning - disturbing photo):
http://www.llrc.org/du/dupage.htm
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/dhap/dhap994.html
Re-suspension of Rocky Flats released Pu by wildfires and winds:
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/rf/plutoniu.htm
MM