Iodine131 Levels in Milk
Unless I'm reading your findings incorrectly,
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2174
you're reporting a finding of .7 Bq/L of I131 in store-bought milk on 4/4/11, and comparing that to the effects of flying on an airplane, which is fine, but if the EPA standard for tap water is .111 Bq/L...
That means the milk is more than 6 times as radioactive as the highest acceptable level of drinking water. That seems like a major issue, especially as a father who feeds store bought milk to my 1 year old daughter, every day.
Am I missing something here? Sure, 8-day half life, but who's to say it won't just keep coming down in the rain, at least for a year? And what's the point of setting an EPA standard like .111 Bq/L if it's not significant?
contamination level in milk
Can you please tell me if I am making a mistake with my calculation for the rem exposure from Iodine in milk.
I derived the conversion for 75 picocuies as equal to 1 mrem/year from a document authored by Chris Busby.
Again, math is not my strength so please help me if i’m wrong.
The highest EPA reading for milk from Phoenix was 48 picocuries liter. 1 liter is 33.8 ounces.
75 picocuries equals 100 mrem (This is from a conversion chart)
48 picocuries equals 62.4 mrem
So, 1 liter of milk is 33.8 ounces which is 62.4 mrem
So, if you drank 365 ounces of milk you’ve consumed 673 mrem
Help please! Is this correct?
The EPA guide I’m looking at figures that if
10,000 people are exposed to 1 rem of radiation over a lifetime, cancer rates from that exposure will be 5 to 6
THE EPA RECOMMENDS EXPOSURE TO BACKGROUND RADIATIONS SHOULD BE NO MORE THAN 100 MREM A YEAR
do you have a link for that busby citation
thx
http://euradcom.org/publicati
http://euradcom.org/publications/iodinedosecalc15042011.pdf
http://euradcom.org/publicati
http://euradcom.org/publications/iodinedosecalc15042011.pdf
Busby link
thanks
thanks
Iodine131 Levels in Milk
BRAWM team, please correct me if I'm off here.
If everthing I've estimated below is correct, the .7 Bq/L in milk
measured by the BRAWM team is 243x *below* the FDA "derived intervention
level".
The EPA acceptable level in drinking water is much lower than the FDA
"derived intervention level" for "Food in commerce" (which includes milk).
I don't know why the limits between agencies are so different.
Someone from the BRAWM team can correct me if I'm wrong, but I
believe 1kg of milk is roughly equal to 1 Liter.
The FDA "derived intervention level" is stated as follows:
=============================================================
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/iodine/standards_regulations.html
Food in commerce (derived intervention level)***
170 Becquerels per kilogram (4,600 pCi/kg)
***Foods destined for general consumption and also for infant milk
and drinking water.
EPA level for drinking water: 4 mrem/yr equivalent to 3 pCi/L (0.1 Bq/L)
continuous exposure
FDA Links:
http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/publichealthfocus/ucm247403.htm
http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManua...
http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FoodContaminantsAdulteration/Chemical...
==============================================================
The EPA gave the following news release:
===============================================================
3/30/11
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/8aca5fe3d1d30ebc852578630074eaff!OpenDocument
"EPA conducts radiological monitoring of milk under its RADNET program, while the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has jurisdiction over the safety, labeling and identity of milk and milk products in interstate commerce. States have jurisdiction over those facilities located within their territory.
Results from a screening sample taken March 25 from Spokane, Wash. detected 0.8 pCi/L of iodine-131, which is more than 5,000 times lower than the Derived Intervention Level set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. These types of findings are to be expected in the coming days and are far below levels of public health concern, including for infants and children. Iodine-131 has a very short half-life of approximately eight days, and the level detected in milk and milk products is therefore expected to drop relatively quickly"
==============================================================
If my math is correct (Bq = pCi/27), the 0.8 pCi/L of iodine-131 detected
in the EPA Spokane, Wa. sample is equal to .03 Bq/L. So, the .7 Bq/L BRAWM
team sample is approx. 24x the EPA sample. However, it's still approx.
243x lower than the FDA "derived intervention level" of 170 Bq/L.
EPA limit
The EPA limit assumes that you are going to drink that water every day for ~50 years of your life.
Brian [BRAWM team member]
I am frustrated that new milk samples are not forthcoming here
yet.
I will comment that it is pretty clear that the high peaks reported relate to the explosions at Fukushima in the days after the earthquake and as those plumes circle the globe they rain down causing these peaks which seem to be gradually diminshing. I have not seen new steam or smoke plumes coming from the reactors, although it seems they nate simply dumping it all into the sea where some of it may evaporate and get back into the atmosphere.
But unless there is a serious event releasing more huge plumes, the radioiodine will, it seems, dimish gradually over the necxt few months.
My understanding of the EPA standards is based on, I believe, annual consumption. Although since NO level is safe and is likely to cause harm, these "limits" are just cost benefit analyses which allow x number of citizens to die or get sick based on the need to allow nuke plants to occasionally leak the stuff without panicking the public and damaging the milk and produce markets.
I believe right now that Canada's refusal to measure amounts in milk is SOLELY because they do not want to report them as it will hurt their milk, cheese and butter markets.
Of course the bad news is that the cesium which rained down on us (and probably strontium 90) will be here for 100's of years and gets into the food, water and milk too.
While ther iodine 131 levels off and fades, the other radionuclides will persist and be bioaccumulated.
i am so pissed about this.
But we need NEW results on milk, rainwater, produce, tapwater HERE where we trust the scientists to tell us the truth.
I am hearing crickets expecpt for the new air studies which are annoying NOT reassuring because it has been raining here off an on for weeks and the conctrations are in the soil, plants, milk, grass, and water.
WHERE can I get reliable milk results for the NORTHEAST? And since I really feel that the Berkeley results will be consistent (based on the Canada and French reports posted here) with what we get here near NYC, I am REALLY getting gnarly waiting for more results from Berkeley on Water, Milk, spinach, etc.
WE NEED TO KNOW ASAP.
Just remember
I am a mom with two very little ones, so trust me when I say that I am just as vested in finding out what their findings were for the food and milk. With that said, however, PLEASE remember they have lives and family, school and work and they are doing this in their own personal time, with a small staff and only certain resources. The air is probably the easiest for them to do, so it stands to reason that would be the easiest one posted. They have stated numerous times over the last 48 hours that they are working on getting results for everything else.
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2369
and
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2370
We are all anxious to find out what is going on, but a certain level of patience is deserved for these hard working people who are under ABSOLUTELY NO obligation to provide us with the information they have thus far.
if i had a small child, i would not give them ANYTHING
that had radioiodine, cesium or strontium detected.
There is NO safe level and amounts of radioiodine should diminish over time.
Consider alternatives like almond milk and produce such as rice and beans produced before the plumes reached us.
Do what you can to filter the water as recommended multiple places on this board.
I put povodone iodine on my kids which is reported to prevent uptake of radioiodine in NIH studies.
I also have said food from the southern hemisphere (bananas, mangos, papaya, grapes/produce from Chile) will be safer.
Ultimately, the cesium and strontium seems to be pervasive in food stuffs from the northenr hemisphere (as it already is to some degree) so good antioxidents and foods which protect from radiation should help (miso, green tea, blueberries, etc)
I also suggest frozen foods from last years harvests and prior to the most recent plumes. Finally greenhouse produce (tomatoes, lettuce, etc) will be safer (depending on the water source although the water will be more diluted than rainwater as Berkeley shows) than crops grown outdoors.
Just my two cents. Keep the little ones safe as you can.
Your points are really important!
re: Iodine131 Levels in Milk
You're right, there is no 'safe' level of radionuclides. Here's the deal, they talk about half lives, remember junior high school chemistry? Half life means the time it takes for these elements to decay to 1/2 of what they are to something else. For example, Iodine 131 takes 8 days for 1/2 of it to decay to something else that is not necessarily radioactive. If you're consuming foods with this over time, your're talking about quite a length of time when your insides are subject to the gamma rays that are released as each particle goes through its 8 day cycle of decay. It's no mystery then where alot of cancer comes from, is it?
For the east coasters reading here, you guys have alot denser concentrations of nuclear plants in your half of the country so I would bet that you are getting the bulk of fallout of I-131, Cs 134, 136 or 137, Sr-90 etc. from your local plants and may be much less than what West coast states are and will be getting unless of course there is a concentration of materials brought low via the jetstream and precipitation/rain/snowfall.
I'm in Reno, NV and I'm more concerned with higher levels of fallout particles that we are likely now breathing and worse, likely bathing in since our water comes from the Truckee river and is fed by the snow melt. Also, I too am not happy about the Plutonium etc. that has been released into the oceans (we've eliminated seafood and will only consume fresh water source fish now),potential of high counts of nuclear material supposedly now present in California produce and any non-hothouse mushrooms (high concentrators of Cesium) and milk which will carry it as well as Sr-90 etc. for months simply because the cows will be grazing on contaminated fields. There is also a history of Polonium-210 naturally occurring in certain milk from various farms in our area too. I wish some chemist can come up with a combination non-toxic preparation that could deactivate these fission byproducts.
Oh well, as long as the general public lacks dosimeters/geiger counters we're all 'sitting ducks' for the ills of incidental ingestion and respiration.
Our team does not make
Our team does not make health recommendations as that is not within our expertise. However, I just want to mention that none of our team (even those with young children) are making any lifestyle changes out of concern for radiation. (see http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2044#avoid)
Additionally, (again without making any medical recommendation) we caution against the use of iodine pills or other large doses of iodine, due to potential allergic reactions as well as other possible side effects. The risks of allergies or side effects are many times greater than the risks of the radiation dose.
Brian [BRAWM team member]
eggs?
will anyone test eggs from pastured hens, and organic eggs for radiation?
eggs
I am keeping my chickens in their coop and run, covering it from the rain, not letting them out in the rain or on the grass. only feeding them layer feed instead of free range and giving them well water. hopefully it will keep them away from swallowing fallout for the short term.