milk in 1962...

(The key quote if you don't want to read down is "Iodine-131 in the thyroid was found only where appreciable levels of iodine-131 were observed in the pasteurized milk network samples in the area from which the thyroid specimen was obtained.")

I was just poking around the internet and found an EPA document with some measurements from some peak fallout times from nuclear bomb testing. It shows some years around 1962 and the yearly average - note that this goes for the entire year - for various isotopes. Generally accumulation of isotopes was worse in "Wet" areas of the country

"The whole-body and bone doses to people deriving their foodstuffs from "dry" areas of the U.S. are estimated to be somewhat less (possibly as much as one-third to one-half)than those deriving their food from "wet" areas." ("bone" doses would be the Strontium, back then Strontium and Cesium were a big problem it seems)
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/federal/frc_rpt4.pdf

So we have in the milk now in Berkeley .7 Bq/L iodine (temporary i hope!)
Average across the year of 1962 for iodine it says:
Wet areas 29 = 1.07 Bq/L
Dry areas 36 = 1.33 Bq/L(this year this is opposite what the findings were in general which almost always are higher in wet areas or where people eat and drink food from wet areas in the measurements "in Man")
Alaska 104 = 3.8 Bq/L(perhaps the proximity to Russia and winds directed from Soviet test sites)
Hawaii 12 = .44 Bq/L

So...I don't know, just some interesting data. Apparently radiation fallout falls many times more (up to 1000 times I read on idealist.ws) where there is rain and snow, which they found at Chernobyl too, creating "hot spots."

Actually maybe that doesn't apply to iodine - They might have a ton more data since then, especially from Chernobyl, but I think this is interesting anyway:

The deposition of iodine-131 is largely associated with material initially injected into the troposphere and hence is not systematically related to the mean annual rainfall. (what does that mean??)

4.25 Since November 1961, the Public Health Service with the cooperation of selected medical centers throughout the continental United States has collected and analyzed several hundred thyroid autopsy specimens. The thyroids were primarily from adults experiencing a traumatic death. (gosh so dramatic!)

Iodine-131 values ranged from 0-20 picocuries per gram of thyroid with a probable mean in the range of 5-7 picocuries per gram. Iodine-131 in the thyroid was found only where appreciable levels of iodine-131 were observed in the pasteurized milk network samples in the area from which the thyroid specimen was obtained.

4.26 The highest station for iodine-131 in milk in the continental U.S. in 1962 was in Utah. A large percentage of the observed iodine-131 occurred as the result of atmospheric tests in Nevada. Although the Utah State Health Department reported iodine-131 concentrations in excess of 1000 picocuries iodine-131 per liter of milk for about a week (37 Bq), the equivalent daily intake for a year for the population in the milkshed would have been 103 picocuries iodine-131 per liter (3.8Bq). Milk from individual farms or from individual cows could, of course, be higher or lower than the measured average for the station.

Dang, I like milk :( :( :( (wait, in the "milkshed"?)

Thanks for this

so it seems at the peak of nuclear testing exposure we are now getting a dose which is 1/2 to 2/3 what we were exposed to back then?

If his stands true for the cesium, strontium, etc in terms of sustained continuing exposure (which will happen if the cesium etc comes down in the rain and enters the food chain) then we will be adding to the overall dose load and increasing it by 50-70%.

Since the ERCC risk model suggests the overall doses from nuke testing caused millions of cancers globally, I continue to urge the folks here and the media to avoid saying, these amounts are miniscule and too low to be of concern. NO dose is too low to be of concern.

I urge folks to google Pediatrician Helen Caldicott and to read the NY Academy of Sciences study on Chernobyl deaths (about 1 million cancer deaths according to results of some 5000 studies in the Ukraine and Russia) and the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) 2003 study which suggest tens of millions dead from nuclar testing globally as well as emissions from commercial nuclear operations (including Chernobyl, TMI and regular emissions from commercial and military reactor operations globally).

I have posted links in other posts but will do so again if anyone is interested. Also Chris Busby of the ECRR has predictaed 200,000 cancer deaths from the Fukushima plume based on the ECRR model of risk.

I urge students at Berkeley to look at these studies and info before buying into the idea that these levels found are too low to be of concern.

I don't think the strontium

I don't think the strontium levels would be the same as back then. But note that in any case this is adding to the burden as a portion of the strontium is STILL HERE from the 60s."Today, about one-quarter of all the 1960's strontium-90 is still lurking on our mountains, farms and in our surface water. "

the entire quote:

"Another type of fallout that we should be concerned with was created via orographic precipitation- or when a cloud that can't climb up against a high mountain deposits its contents. The highest levels of strontium-90 in milk in Europe in the 1960s was in Switzerland because its Alps collected fallout that leached during rains and periods of snowmelt into low-lying farming areas. This also happens in the Hawaiian Range in the Pacific, highlands of equatorial Africa, and the Sierras and the Rockies of North America - all are still harboring great quantities of strontium-90 (and plutonium-239 and cesium-137) in soils from radioactive clouds that were 'scavenged' at high altitudes and contaminate farms and water supplies.

Our mountain ranges and agricultural low-lying areas are still radioactive because of the long 'half-life' of strontium-90 - of 28 years. This means that every 28 years any quantity (large or small) of strontium-90 will decay by half into a different chemical that is safe and non-radioactive (zirconium), leaving behind another half of Strontium-90 as radioactive as the day it was created. In the early 1990s, theoretically half of the deposited 1960's strontium-90 was still present in all soils and water on Earth. Today, about one-quarter of all the 1960's strontium-90 is still lurking on our mountains, farms and in our surface water. It is certain that high levels of strontium-90 still exist in some U.S. and global agricultural areas and are still getting into people's bodies through foodstuffs."
this from idealist.ws

And about the Strontium:
Each plume is characterized by a unique fingerprint of radioactive emissions which can be identified by a particular series of isotopic ratios. Weapons testing fallout was high in radiostrontium, low in cesium-134, and, thus, differed from the Chernobyl source term which had much less radiostrontium and a higher ratio of cesium-134 to cesium-137 than weapons test fallout. Eisenbud (1987. Environmental radioactivity. Fourth edition. Academic Press, Orlando, FL) and most early reports on the Chernobyl accident, in a classic example of misinformation, based the source term for Chernobyl upon Russian data which only included inventories of radionuclides deposited on Russian soil. Further research indicated that the source term release for Chernobyl included larger quantities of radioactive emissions than initially estimated and much higher levels of contamination than expected in locations which were a great distance from Chernobyl. An important study of the pre-Chernobyl sources of radioactivity, including naturally occurring, industrial, atomic power, weapons testing, and fuel reprocessing sources is the UNSCEAR Text (1982)

from http://biocatastrophe.blogspot.com/2011/03/nuclear-disaster-in-japan.html

In July of 1959 California

In July of 1959 California experienced a nuclear disaster worse than 3 mile Island:
"In 1959 a partial meltdown occurred at the Boeing-Rocketdyne nuclear testing facility, about 30 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles. The incident released the third greatest amount of radioactive iodine in nuclear history. But no one really heard about it until Boeing recently settled a class-action suit filed by local residents." (http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=06-P13-00003&segmentID=1)

This may account for some of the isotopes detected in the Western US in the early 1960's
More information at the following websites;
http://www.rocketdynecleanupcoalition.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Susana_Field_Laboratory#Sodium_reacto...
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=06-P13-00003&segmentID=1

This seems very, very reassuring...

...ASSUMING levels of emission have ALREADY "peaked" and that we're now looking at a long, slow decline of the really dangerous stuff.

Also assuming that what's been -- and continues to be -- released into the Pacific Ocean is in some way so vastly dispersed, or naturally mitigated, or decays / dissolves so completely, as to have NO CUMULATIVE IMPACT on the Pacific Basin, adjoining nations / communities, or the foodstuffs derived from same...

...And, naturally, that the situation doesn't deteriorate in any way, and that TEPCO and the brave souls fighting this war on the front lines at Fukushima are successful in reigning in these reactors and shutting them down successfully, the sooner the better.

Thanks to Anonymous for putting me on to this thread! Much obliged,

Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
www.facebook.com/lonestarplano
RichardFCromackJr@gmail.com
972-746-8575