Milk is it safe for children to drink
What brand name Milk has been tested? Is the milke safe for todlers to drink? My 3 year old drinks 1.5 gallon a week. Are the Milk procducers looking into your test?
What brand name Milk has been tested? Is the milke safe for todlers to drink? My 3 year old drinks 1.5 gallon a week. Are the Milk procducers looking into your test?
Milk has always been radioactive
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/UCBAirSampling/MilkSampling
Naturally occurring radioactivity from Potassium-40: 50.000 Bq/L
Current total radioactive cesium activity: 0.167 Bq/L
Your milk has always had naturally occurring radioactivity in it. The additional radiation from fukushima is negligible.
Synapse: How do they
Synapse: How do they refute your analysis?
Gofman: They're smart — they don't refer to it.
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/synapse.html#Part2
John William Gofman is professor emeritus of Medical Physics at UC Berkeley, and lecturer for the Department of Medicine, UCSF. While getting As PhD in physics at Berkeley in the 1940s, Gofman proved the slow and fast neutron fissionability of uranium-233. At the request of J. Robert Oppenheimer, Gofman helped produce plutonium (not even a quarter-milligram existed at the time) for the Manhattan Project. He got his MD from UCSF in 1946 (winning the Gold-Headed Cane Award, presented to the senior who most fully personifies a "true physician") and began his research on coronary heart disease. In 1963 the Atomic Energy Commission asked him to establish a Biomedical Research Division at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to evaluate the health effects of all types of nuclear radiation. By 1969, however, the AEC and the "radiation community" were downplaying his warnings about the risks of radiation . Gofman returned to full-time teaching at Berkeley, switching to emeritus status in 1973.
Radiation-Induced Cancer From Low-Dose Exposure
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC/contentsF.html
If you choose to view the above, do know you are viewing a suppressed report the establishment does not want you to see.
Gofman and LNT
Gofman was a proponent of the Linear No Threshold (LNT) model. The LNT model presupposes the nonexistence of a radiation damage repair mechanism. Otherwise the damage wouldn't be linear in the dose.
We are now past the time of Gofman, and modern scientists have discovered that there IS a radiation damage repair mechanism. So Gofman was WRONG; the only question is how wrong was he.
As the National Academy and the BEIR reports point out; LNT is conservative, that is it over-estimates the actual damage, and it is easy. Therefore, BEIR suggests LNT to be used as a model for regulators. It's easy and the regulations will be conservative.
However, don't confuse that with what ACTUALLY happens. The human radiation dose response is much more complicated than what LNT suggests.
"I consider Gofman one of the
"I consider Gofman one of the greatest teachers of the 20th century. His work has already changed the way the world views the dangers of radiation, and his latest book [Radiation from Medical Procedures] will—eventually, after a long fight—revolutionize the way the world looks at medical radiation. Cumulatively his work will save tens of millions of lives."
—Peter Montague
Science over activism
That may be OK for you; but I don't let historians do my thinking for me.
Science and not environmental activism is what sways me.
Something that I don't
Something that I don't understand about how Gofman is brought as a reference in this debate is that he already said 20 years ago that the main international regulators had accepted his main thesis. The actual policy in the US follows the linear non-threshold theory about dose for risk assessment, for example BEIR VII, and as someone from BRAWM said several months ago, the doses they have been detecting would only mean one case of cancer every billion people or so.
The models being touted are
The models being touted are flawed; therefore, any conclusions they support are not credible.
"It is hard to get a man to understand something when his livelihood depends on his not understanding." Upton Sinclair
Radioactivity has ALWAYS been in food / drink.
Radioactivity has ALWAYS been in food / drink.
In fact, the US Government REQUIRES that spirits and wines sold in USA have radioactivity in them. That ensures that the alcohol was made from recently grown plant material and doesn't come from petroleum.
Check out the book by UC-Berkeley Physics Professor Richard Muller called "The Instant Physicist":
http://www.amazon.com/Instant-Physicist-Illustrated-Guide/dp/0393078264/...
Visit the "Look Inside" feature and advance to page 13 with the "C'mon Oppenheimer" cartoon. The caption states that the minimum radioactivity has to be at least 400 counts per minute for a 750 ml bottle.
If you do the units conversion; that works out to at least 240 pCi/L.
The anti-nukes here have been decrying observed radioactivity levels a lot lees than the 240 pCi/L that is the minimum for liquor to be sold in the USA. Shows what they know.
I advise people to refer to
I advise people to refer to the scientific work of John William Gofman (MD, PhD), never anonymous shills with chips on their shoulders like the one above.
Gofman's reputation is not the best
Gofman is controversial, but Muller certainly is not.
Besides, the post above that you say is a shill references a very highly regarded professor at Berkeley, Prof. Richard Muller.
Why not read what someone like Richard Muller has to say.
Of course he was and is
Of course he was and is controversial -- he published research directly contradicting what the establishment was trying to establish. The work by Muller being cited is merely a textbook saying nothing significant to the matter at hand.
As for credentials, put Gofman up against *anyone* -- he is second to none.
Folks should take heed -- government shills invade forums like this one with an onslaught of keyword-based propaganda designed to tout the party line or at the least lend the impression of an equally or even more justified counter-position.
The average citizen just hasn't the time to care very much so the for the most part the tactic is meaningfully effective -- effective enough that governments consider it a valuable tool in the arsenal of deception, division, and destruction.
NOT a textbook!
The work by Professor Muller is NOT a textbook. It is a work for everday people with an explanation of science.
It is very relevant because the referred passage tells people that they have been ingesting radioactive material for as long as they've been eating and drinking.
In fact, it puts all the scare stories into perspective. If your natural food / drink has a natural radioactivity level of 240 pCi / L; then why are some people running around like "Chicken Little" when they discover something has a 10 pCi / L level of radioactivity?
Whether he drinks 10 gallons
Whether he drinks 10 gallons or 1 gallon, some radioactive isotopes will be entering his system. Because of the incredible proximity to his organs, there is some real risk even when the magnitude of exposure is considered very low. But what can you do? There is a price we must pay for civilization.
test
test (my last comment did not appear)re: Infant mortality rates in the US increase after Fukushima
http://radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf
WRONG!
But what can you do? There is a price we must pay for civilization.
================================
This is the price you pay for living on this planet!!!
The post above yours is correct; the VAST MAJORITY of the radioactivity that is in milk and food is due to Mother Nature and not nuclear power or civilization.
Courtesy of the Health Physics Society at University of Michigan:
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm
See for yourself where most of your radiation exposure comes from.
Fukushima effects are negligible
The amount of radioactivity in milk contributed by Fukushima is negligible compared with what is due to Mother Nature.
From the testimony of the eminent radiation epidemiologist Dr. John Boice to Congress:
http://www.hps.org/documents/John_Boice_Testimony_13_May_2011.pdf
Dr. Boice testifies:
The health consequences for Japanese workers and public appear to be minor
The health consequences for United States citizens are negligible to nonexistent
Excuse me
Not to stir up a controversy here but isn't cesium 137 a radioactive isotope made solely by man. If I understand correct the earth was cesium free before humans released large amounts with atomic testing.
SO WHAT!
Yes - Cesium-137 is principally man-made. SO WHAT.
All that really matters is the dose; how much and how it is distributed, both spatially and temporally.
These man-made radioisotopes are principally "beta" emitters - that means when they decay the radiation that they emit is an electron.
Mother Nature has plenty of beta-emitters also.
So you are being bombarded by high-energy electrons. Your body doesn't know whether that electron came from a man-made radioisotope or a natural one.
The anti-nukes have been attempting to peddle some ridiculous nonsense that the radiation from natural sources is OK, while the radiation from man-made sources is sinister. Scientifically, that is a bunch of CRAP.
There are not "natural" electrons and "man-made" electrons. Same with photons.
A 1 MeV photon is a 1 MeV photon is a 1 MeV photon.
Your body can't tell the difference. Your body can't tell the difference between pure water from rainfall, and water that was made by burning hydrogen and oxygen. Water is water.
A water molecule is a water molecule is a water molecule.
The natural sources of radiation are every bit as damaging as the man-made sources. Our bodies have a radiation damage repair mechanism, which allows us to live on this planet bathed in radiation. That repair mechanism works every bit as well on damage from "artificial" radiation as it does on "natural" radiation.
There's some new research out of Lawrence Berkeley National Lab that was recently published in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Science:
http://lowdose.energy.gov/
http://www.examiner.com/science-in-south-bend/dna-repair-centers-fix-low...
“Our data show that at lower doses of ionizing radiation, DNA repair mechanisms work much better than at higher doses,” says Mina Bissell, breast cancer researcher with the Life Sciences Division. “This non-linear DNA damage response casts doubt on the general assumption that any amount of ionizing radiation is harmful and additive.”
Add Fukushima
So what .you do realize there was an atomic test ban .if we had used your simple logic As expressed above we would still be testing .would you support that.
http://mitnse.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/radiation_mm_06.pdf
"Of lesser magnitude, members of the public are exposed to radiation from the nuclear fuel cycle, which includes the entire sequence from mining and milling of uranium to the actual production of power at a nuclear plant. This would be uranium and its daughter products.
The final sources of exposure to the public would be shipment of radioactive materials and residual fallout from nuclear weapons testing and accidents, such as Chernobyl."
-------
I realize - but you don't
you do realize there was an atomic test ban .
============================
I realize but you evidently didn't realize that the nuclear powers figured out how to conduct nuclear tests without radioactive release to the biosphere.
Ever since the early '60s and for 3 decades there after; the USA tested nuclear weapons underground. The radioactive debris from the explosion becomes entrained in the melted rock, that then cools trapping the radioactive material inside forever. That way the radioisotopes are isolated from the biosphere.
If the USA were to continue nuclear testing; it would certainly be done underground. I wouldn't have any problem with that. The USA did that successfully for 3 decades.
Unfortunately, about 40% of
Unfortunately, about 40% of those tests leaked. The most memorable was Baneberry just before Christmas in 1970:
http://onlinenevada.org/Underground_Nuclear_Testing_at_the_Nevada_Test_Site
An except:
"Although underground experiments were designed to contain nuclear explosions, there were times when tests vented accidentally, releasing radioactivity on and/or off the test site. One of the most serious accidents was the test code-named Baneberry. Early in the morning of December 18, 1970, the ten-kiloton test, designed by scientists from the Livermore laboratory, vented along a fissure near ground zero, releasing a large, radioactive cloud high into the air. The test shaft was in Area 8 of Yucca Flat and the cloud moved toward the Area 12 camp where hundreds of workers were still stationed. The camp was evacuated and workers underwent decontamination before being sent home. Significant fallout from the test was detected offsite in Nevada and surrounding states."
Radioactive snow for the kids of the inter-mountain west to play in for Christmas 1970 ;(
I'm familar with Baneberry and venting...
I'm familiar with Baneberry and venting; but the fact remains that the fallout from nuclear testing was not as great as the pea-brained anti-nukes would have you believe.
Again quoting the Health Physics Society at the University of Michigan:
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm
Fallout from nuclear testing ( including Baneberry ) is only <0.03% of the average person's radiation dose; or less than 1/3000-th.
That is; we could have conducted 3,000 times as many nuclear tests, and had 3,000 Baneberrys and we would only be catching up to what we get from Mother Nature
All the folderol from the pin-head anti-nukes that seem incapable of doing arithmetic, notwithstanding; the largest contribution to the average person's radiation exposure is now, and has always been; from Mother Nature
Not in Northern Japan, which
Not in Northern Japan, which now has a very real radioactive contamination problem from Fukushima:
Official NRC transcripts from an FOIA request:
US government source: http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1205/ML12052A109.pdf
Page 72:
Mr CASTO: "There is spent fuel and pellets and whatever all over the place around the plant."
What is the largest
What is the largest contributor to the radiation exposure of someone living now in Fukushima prefecture?
Is it Mother Nature or the Fukushima Nuuclear Power Plant?
What is the added exposure to
What is the added exposure to the thyroid of a 5 year old child that drank 3 liters of milk in April 2011 in Coffey County, Kansas from the fallout of Fukushima?
Is Any Radiation "Safe"?
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/PP/chp4.html
John William Gofman is Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology in the University of California at Berkeley, and Lecturer at the Department of Medicine, University of California School of Medicine at San Francisco.
He is the author of several books and more than a hundred scientific papers in peer-review journals in the fields of nuclear / physical chemistry, coronary heart disease, ultracentrifugal analysis of the serum lipoproteins, the relationship of human chromosomes to cancer, and the biological effects of radiation, with especial reference to causation of cancer and hereditary injury.
Ratical is an anti-nuclear group
Ratical is an anti-nuclear group.
So please don't confuse them with a legitimate scientific reference source.
The referenced article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science is a much better reference than anything you get from a biased source like "ratical".
rat haus reality, ratical
rat haus reality, ratical branch is the electronic manifestation of rat haus reality press, dedicated to promulgating and promoting life-nurturing activities and awarenesses regarding this home we all share and are all responsible for, not simply for the seventh generation of humankind yet unborn, but for all life germinated and nourished by Gaia.
The human transition from an adolescent, "industrial-mind" value system, based only on asking the question, Is it possible? (to do whatever is being considered), to Gaia- sustaining and promoting practices and explorations which must ask the question, Is it appropriate?, is the only possible future of human activity on this earth. Without taking responsibility for everything we participate in here, we condemn to premature termination the exquisite eons of life exploring itself in this dimension.
There are many people who have participated, and continue to assist, in making this place be actualized. Their love and caring are embodied in, and help light, this library.
Ratical is a repository of
Ratical is a repository of content worth archiving, and one of the most visionary sites on the web. In the case of Gofman, Ratical is hosting some of his scientific papers and books.
Gofman's DEAD, and so is his body
Gofman's DEAD.
And? He was a rare individual
And?
He was a rare individual not easily replaced, but his mere being dead does not remotely discredit the immense value of his scientific contributions.
Gofman theorized; LBNL did the experiments
Gofman didn't do experiments; he just theorized that linear no-threshold was valid.
Since then, science has discovered the workings of the DNA repair mechanism. That probably puts LNT into the dumpster. If your exposure is within the ability of the repair mechanism to repair; then there's no damage.
The LBNL work is the latest most up to date work. Gofman's work is decades old.
Now, how does that work? If
Now, how does that work?
If there is 'repair' needed, surely there is therefore damage occurring beforehand?
So you are definitely claiming that DNA damage does indeed occur, even at these low doses, but that it may or may not be 'repaired'?
Are you claiming the 'repair' is always 100% effective?
And how exactly do you know that?
I wonder, do people's DNA repair capabilities differ?
Presumably yes.
So one persons 'good' (according to your definition) dose will kill somebody else.
And what is the threshold to go from this 'good' level you claim to the 'bad' level for any one person?
How do you work that one out?
Are you really claiming that some people are more worthy of living than others, based just on their DNA repair mechanism capabilities?
Dr. John W. Gofman, the
Dr. John W. Gofman, the medical physicist whose fight for what he considered scientific honesty in understanding the health effects of ionizing radiation made him a pariah to the nuclear power industry and the U.S. government, died of heart failure Aug. 15 at his home in San Francisco. He was 88.
Often called the father of the antinuclear movement, Gofman and his colleague at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Arthur R. Tamplin, developed data in 1969 showing that the risk from low doses of radiation was 20 times higher than stated by the government.
Their publication of the data, despite strong efforts to censor it, led them to lose virtually all of their research funding and, eventually, their positions at the government laboratory.
Most of their conclusions have subsequently been validated, but critics say the risks have been ignored by an electric power industry that sees nuclear energy as a pollution-free alternative to fossil fuels and by a medical industry that continues to use much larger amounts of radiation for medical tests than are required.
"He always stood up for the integrity of science," said Charles Weiner, professor emeritus of the history of science at MIT.
"He was really an original voice" in the debate over the risks of nuclear power, Weiner said, "someone who was an insider in nuclear weapons production who was very highly regarded by leaders in the field . . . and who brought credential, credibility and authority."
Until his death, Gofman's position continued to be that there is no safe level of exposure to ionizing radiation.
"Licensing a nuclear power plant is, in my view, licensing random premeditated murder," Gofman said in the 1982 book "Nuclear Witnesses: Insiders Speak Out."
"First of all, when you license a plant, you know what you are doing -- so it's premeditated. You can't say, 'I didn't know.' Second, the evidence on radiation producing cancer is beyond doubt. . . . It's not a question anymore: Radiation produces cancer, and the evidence is good all the way down to the lowest doses."
Gofman and Tamplin's data about the health effects of radiation -- and their revelations about the Atomic Energy Commission's attempts to silence them -- played a large role in the demise of that organization in 1974.
The Atomic Energy Commission was divided into two organizations: the Energy Research and Development Administration, whose goal was to promote the development of atomic energy, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which was supposed to monitor the safety of the nuclear industry.
Gofman argued, however, that the changes were merely cosmetic and that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission continued to promote nuclear power to the detriment of the public at large.
In 1971, he helped found the Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, a San Francisco-based advocacy group that studies the health effects of ionizing radiation. During that decade, he and others unsuccessfully argued for a five-year moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants, arguing that the generation of massive quantities of radioactive waste made them a major health risk.
The 1979 accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown in the Soviet Union proved to be much more powerful arguments against the industry, however, and construction of new facilities slowed dramatically in their wakes.
Although nuclear power today accounts for 20% of the electric power generated in the United States, the last new nuclear power plant to be completed was the Watts Bar 1 plant in Tennessee, which came online in 1996.
More recently, Gofman had argued forcefully that radiation is overused in medicine, both for diagnosis and treatment, without a full consideration of the risks. He noted that some hospitals use as much as 100 times the required radiation for imaging. He also argued that CT scans are used too often when less dangerous approaches are available.
Many of Gofman's colleagues viewed his ultimate opposition to nuclear power as a long, strange journey for a scientist who had been intimately associated with the creation of the industry.
John William Gofman was born Sept. 21, 1918, in Cleveland, the son of Russian immigrants. After finishing high school during the Great Depression, he attended nearby Oberlin talking his way in and wangling a scholarship despite the fact that admissions were formally closed.
After graduating, he enrolled in medical school at Cleveland's Western Reserve University. After a year, however, he took a leave of absence and enrolled in the chemistry program at UC Berkeley.
Upon his arrival there, Dean Gilbert Newton Lewis told Gofman that he wanted him to begin his research project "in the next week or two." After talking to several professors, he met with future Nobel laureate Glenn Seaborg, who suggested that he might examine whether uranium-233 could exist in nature.
Intrigued, Gofman signed on, and he and his colleagues produced four one-millionths of a gram of the isotope in the Berkeley cyclotron and proved that it would fission spontaneously.
He also was the co-discoverer of protactinium-232, uranium-232 and protactinium-233 during his graduate student years.
As a postdoctoral fellow at Berkeley, he was working on ways to isolate plutonium from uranium that had been bombarded with neutrons. Although the Manhattan Project was then building a massive plant in the Pacific Northwest to produce plutonium, at that time there was less than a quarter of a milligram of it in existence.
"There was so little plutonium that our research team had never even seen the element," he said later.
But in 1942, physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, who headed the Manhattan Project, went to Gofman and told him that half a milligram of plutonium was needed immediately for crucial experiments that would determine the direction of the project.
Gofman and his colleagues packed a ton of uranyl nitrate around the Berkeley cyclotron and irradiated it with neutrons day and night for six weeks. Then, working with 10-pound batches of the uranium, the team spent three weeks working around the clock to isolate half a cubic centimeter of liquid containing 1.2 milligrams of plutonium -- twice as much as they had expected.
Despite his later antinuclear stance, Gofman said, he had no guilt about his role in the development of the atomic bomb, citing the "human monstrosity" of Germany's Nazi regime.
After his work on plutonium was completed, Gofman returned to medical school at UC San Francisco. He earned his medical degree in 1946.
He had some thoughts about the then-unknown links between hardening of the arteries and cholesterol in the bloodstream and decided to study lipoproteins, which are large molecules consisting of proteins tied to fats.
"I didn't want to work on anything less than a big medical problem," he said.
In his studies he used an ultracentrifuge, a device that spun a solution at high speeds to produce layers of components of different molecular weights. But, like other researchers, he found that the lipoproteins could not be resolved into distinct layers -- a finding that led many researchers to speculate that they were breaking down during the process.
Gofman found that adding salt to the solution would cause the lipoproteins to float and separate from the other proteins. "As a result of this discovery, we were able to open up a manner of looking at molecules no one even knew had existed [and] discover a whole series of new lipoproteins," he said.
He demonstrated the existence of high-density and low-density lipoproteins and showed their roles in the development of atherosclerosis.
His work was branded "the Gofman heresy." But, in May, the Journal of Clinical Lipidology reprinted his key paper and called it a "historically important presentation of concepts that underpin our field."
The approach has been widely used throughout heart disease research and won him a share of the 1972 Stouffer Prize, which was then the highest American award in heart disease research.
After earning his medical degree, Gofman took teaching positions at both Berkeley and UC San Francisco.
By 1957, he decided he had had enough of heart disease research. "I'm not very good at dotting I's and crossing Ts," he said. "If it's not something really new and unknown, it's not something I want to do."
Gofman shifted his research to study trace elements in human biochemistry. But in 1962, he got a call from John Foster, director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, inviting him to set up a radiation biology laboratory there.
With a budget of $3 million a year, he began studying potential hazards of radiation, but immediately began butting heads with Washington bureaucrats.
He objected vehemently to a new program called Project Plowshare, which would use nuclear weapons for peaceful purposes. The Atomic Energy Commission proposed building a new sea-level Panama Canal through Nicaragua, for example, by using 315 megatons of hydrogen bombs to blast out the soil.
The project eventually was halted by the nuclear test ban treaty, which forbade above-ground nuclear explosions.
Gofman had aroused a great deal of enmity in Washington, and by the early 1970s he had lost virtually all of his research grants. He retired formally in 1973 and spent the rest of his career writing books about the risks of medical radiation and continuing his research on nuclear hazards.
Gofman's wife, Dr. Helen Fahl Gofman, a pediatrician, died in 2004. He is survived by a son, Dr. John D. Gofman, an ophthalmologist, of Bellevue, Wash.
"hero" worship is NOT science
This blind, unquestioning hero worship notwithstanding; in science we go with the latest results.
The latest results from Lawrence Berkeley published in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences show that the radiation dose response is NOT linear as Gofman said. Hence Gofman was WRONG.
Newton was probably a nice guy too; but when Einstein showed where Newtonion physics was in error, science didn't eschew Einstein because Newton was a nice guy that essentially founded Physics.
Your choice
(apologies if this posts twice...the first time I clicked "save" and it didn't show up)
You will not hear anyone from Berkeley telling you it is unsafe. You have to make that choice by yourself.
The most recent tests DID show fission products from Fukushima. The "experts" seem to believe this is still "safe" but you are the only one who should be making that call for your own kid.
My husband and I made a call at the outset to err on the (arguably extreme) side of caution and we've taken some very severe measures to protect our kids from being subjected to radiation above and beyond what Mother Nature dishes out.
But again - as with any parenting decision, no one is lining up to take on the responsibility of looking out for the safety of your child. If he/she is healthy despite this new avenue of exposure to radiation, that's wonderful! If not, you're the one who will be by your child's side, not UCB/BRAWM, not the EPA, not anyone in the US gov't. You're it.
It's a heavy weight to bear sometimes, but that's parenting.
Best wishes for you. I hope you find peace of mind with whatever choices you make. We're all just trying to do the best we can with the limited information available.
You will not hear anyone from
You will not hear anyone from Berkeley telling you it is unsafe. You have to make that choice by yourself.
The most recent tests DID show fission products from Fukushima. The "experts" seem to believe this is still "safe" but you are the only one who should be making that call for your own kid.
My husband and I made a call at the outset to err on the (arguably extreme) side of caution and we've taken some very severe measures to protect our kids from being subjected to radiation above and beyond what Mother Nature dishes out.
But again - as with any parenting decision, no one is lining up to take on the responsibility of looking out for the safety of your child. If he/she is healthy despite this new avenue of exposure to radiation, that's wonderful! If not, you're the one who will be by your child's side, not UCB/BRAWM, not the EPA, not anyone in the US gov't. You're it.
It's a heavy weight to bear sometimes, but that's parenting.
Best wishes for you. I hope you find peace of mind with whatever choices you make. We're all just trying to do the best we can with the limited information available.