Why was 3/25 sample revised and edits not explained?

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2011-03-31 20:06

Why did you change your 3/25 sample data to make it appear nothing was detected (I have the saved web pages and screen shots of both the results posting on your main page indicating .70, and the data pages where you not only give this same data, but you also identify the sample repeatedly----at least 3 different times---as a sample PURCHASED on 3/25 and not a sample with a SELL BY date of 3/25)?

If these results were in error, you need to explain what that error was. If the sample was mistakenly labeled as "purchased on" and not "sell by" then you need to explain that as well.

While we're at it, can you explain how you purchased a sample of milk that was bottled on around 3/05, but was still available for purchase after almost three weeks, furthermore about one day before its expiration? This does not fit well with most people's purchasing experiences. I have never seen a gallon of milk that is one day from expiration, or even 5 days from expiration, in any store ever. That would be economically unfeasible. If you purchased it long before this, why were your results not posted until the 30th?

I feel you have many questions to answer, which you should have done when posting these HUGE corrections to your previous data in the first place.

‹ downward trend impossible, as reactor leak is continuous The Local News said you were also Testing Grass. Are you? ›

UCB credibility

Submitted by Mad Scientist (not verified) on Fri, 2011-04-01 05:47.

Folks, the faculty & students of UCB NE are among the few in the United States giving us REAL data, so please try to give them the benefit of the doubt if something appears "questionable." I, for one, GREATLY appreciate their efforts, in the absence of similar data from the FDA, EPA, CalEPA, et. al.

Whoa whoa whoa....the milk

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-03-31 21:08.

Whoa whoa whoa....the milk was bought when?

And here are some interesting reports

Cumulative fallout record Cs137
http://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/Rad5a.html#weapons%20test

Plume pulse pathways
http://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/Rad4.html

Again, to be clear....this

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-03-31 21:24.

Again, to be clear....this was not me, the original poster. Just don't want my posts and replies mixed up with the other "anonymous" posters, for the record. I have no further questions.

All data is preliminary and

Submitted by dchivers on Thu, 2011-03-31 20:34.

All data is preliminary and subject to revision as we have said before. We try to explain any revisions so this one should be explained as well. We had purchased milk early on because we wanted a baseline measurement from milk produced before the event but since we had so much rain, we had no extra time to test this baseline until recently when the rain let up for this week. The "Purchased On" date was an honest miscommunication between the collection team and the reporting team, and this has been rectified to indicate the "Best by" date because this is the information most buyers can identify when purchasing.

I know some of you are REALLY skeptical and normally I would say this is a good thing. But, I would say that answering so many questions that goes to the core of our credibility has become quite tiring. I know there are many that read these posts and do not comment and are just happy they have this resource that we are providing. I am going to ask my students and colleagues to refrain from answering such questions in the future because it really takes away from our valuable time that can be spent in the lab and making sure our methods and numbers are sound. I have spent a good deal of energy answering these questions in this forum and I really cannot say much more other than to please read through this forum and decide for yourself to trust us or do not trust us. If you do not trust us, then have a good day and feel free to find another resource.

To be clear, the reply to

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-03-31 20:54.

To be clear, the reply to your post before this was not me (the original poster), saying "I'm not questioning your credibility."

This, however, is my reply: I understand you are busy, and there may be mix ups. I respect this. You have not, however, explained the Milk Sample Number change, nor the change in why the exact results now indicate the levels were undetectable. Those numbers were reported in the media, and you will need to explain to them why the data was wrong, but identical to the 4/4 sample data.

I simply want your data to be credible to as many as possible, and not answering these very pertinent questions does not help that.

Understand.

Submitted by dchivers on Thu, 2011-03-31 21:11.

Understand.

I am not questioning your

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-03-31 20:38.

I am not questioning your credibility ..I understand the mix up in the dates on the milk..but can you explain the result change please

The confusion lies in that

Submitted by bandstra on Thu, 2011-03-31 20:54.

The confusion lies in that the milk sample measured yesterday had the wrong date and wrong type of date (purchased on 3/25). We found the mistake and relabeled it with the best by date 4/4. An older sample was measured today and added. It happened to have a best by date of 3/25, hence the confusion.

The background sample sees no I-131 since it was bottled before Fukushima, as can be inferred from the best by date. The sample now labeled 4/4 is the exact same data posted yesterday.

So, if this is all true,

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-03-31 20:59.

So, if this is all true, then what happened to Milk Sample number 1? They now number Sample 0, and Sample 2. Surely there was a Sample 1?

OK, I can respond to that,

Submitted by dchivers on Thu, 2011-03-31 21:04.

OK, I can respond to that, ..., kind of a funny story. We normally do a reduction in our liquid measurements by drying out the liquid in a drying oven. I came in over the weekend to find that we began "drying" out some milk in the drying oven at a low enough temperature to culture some pretty nasty stuff at the top. Since I was not going to place this stuff in the pristine beakers and I was worried I could not calculate bacterial fractional uptake of the iodine, I decided to dump that sample. This was a mess, as you can imagine. We now do not reduce milk from higher volumes. Science is not always glorious.

That's funny :) Evaporated

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-03-31 21:52.

That's funny :)

Evaporated milk (30-40% solids) is usually produced with a vacuum evaporator, where the boiling point of the milk is reduced to 40-45C (after it gets concentrated enough, it is then homogenized).

I'm not sure why some people got so hung up on the labels(date/sample) on the milk testing results page, the correction was pretty obvious and didn't merit demands of lengthy explanations. The data results are posted almost real time, as opposed to every chart and label font being checked and double-checked for weeks. It's just impolite to make such a fuss about such an insignificant issue.

Thanks for clearing that up

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-03-31 21:39.

Thanks for clearing that up for us..please understand our concerns..and again thanks for the hard work you are doing...

I understand your concerns,

Submitted by dchivers on Thu, 2011-03-31 21:50.

I understand your concerns, and maintain your vigilance. It could only make us better. We just ask that if any mistakes are noticed that we are given the benefit of the doubt and we have a chance to respond. Hopefully we have shown our honesty and integrity in the past two weeks and I just ask for a little respect for my team that has worked so hard to make these results possible.

Also, Sample 1 used the

Submitted by dchivers on Thu, 2011-03-31 21:07.

Also, Sample 1 used the entire half gallon before the reduction, so I don't think we will ever see a sample 1 in our results. Since we always maintain a log of all of our samples, we just moved on to Sample 2. Sorry again for the confusion.

I believe there is a sample

Submitted by bandstra on Thu, 2011-03-31 21:02.

I believe there is a sample 1 we haven't counted yet.

answered above, Mark. I

Submitted by dchivers on Thu, 2011-03-31 21:05.

answered above, Mark. I don't think you were around to see this one.

Sorry, that was an

Submitted by bandstra on Thu, 2011-03-31 20:20.

Sorry, that was an oversight. This has been explained both in the main log and on the milk page. Thank you for your vigilance.

Okay, can you now

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-03-31 20:28.

Okay, can you now explain:

1) Why was it previously labeled as "Milk Sample 2 Data" and now has been changed to "Milk Sample 0 Data"? That doesn't sound like a purchase/expiration mix up.

2) Why you have changed the actual results from .70 to "Below detectable levels"? .70 is NOT below detectable levels. Are you claiming you got results identical to today's results but they were a mistake? If you had these numbers yesterday from the 4/04 results, why was 4/04 not posted yesterday? That does not add up no matter how you try to do it.

for one who has just

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2011-04-01 00:27.

for one who has just happened on this blog, where do the private funds for your department come from?

see this thread

Submitted by WH (not verified) on Fri, 2011-04-01 14:56.

for answer: http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2220