Question regarding produce testing results

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2011-04-06 18:55

Thanks for the very valuable information. I realize the topic I'm about to broach has been addressed in the FAQ and you all have understandably declined to comment on any cumulative risk issues. As a mother I'm still trying to get a handle on the risks inherent in consuming all of the locally grown food we normally eat (along with breathing air and playing in the grass etc). Adding up all the long distance flights it does seem like an awful lot of flying for a 2 year old and in all seriousness heavy frequent fliers are known to have greater cancer risk. So again--either to the team -- or perhaps someone on the forum can we in any way contextualize these numbers to what was seen in Sweden and Germany for example post-Chernobyl? I haven't been able to find comparable numbers to give me any sense.

‹ Is this possible? Glowing blue tap water reported in Minamisoma, just north of meltdowns Strontium 90 in Canadian milk ›

Thanks..

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2012-03-03 12:06.

Thank you so much...

THANK YOU!!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-04-06 21:23.

I really appreciate the point of reference as this is what I haven't been able to nail down. I posted several of the questions on cumulative effects and for the first time I'm starting to breathe a little easier, though the future with Fukushima is obviously uncertain. To reiterate what others have said, what a great public service your team is doing. I'd be happy to lend support in whatever ways I could!

Good deal...

Submitted by WH (not verified) on Wed, 2011-04-06 21:02.

Because this 2002 study in the European Journal of PUblich Health (http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/12/1/72.full.pdf+html) concluded that:

"Chernobyl fallout could well have caused a small, but significant excess of childhood leukemia cases in Europe. The etiologic mechanism might include an induction of chromosome aberrations in early pregnancy. Increased risks in the birth cohort exposed in utero correspond to 11 excess cases in Greece and another 11.4 excess cases in Germany."

Hopefully the Ce-137 levels stabilize at these lower levels you're observing now and don't approach the German post-Chernobyl levels.

Appreciate your reference to the 2003 study Joseph!

WH

Thanks

Submitted by WH (not verified) on Wed, 2011-04-06 20:25.

Think you might be recalling one of my previous questions on this Joseph.

To second the OP, it does seem like if in any given week a child or expecting mother goes about their life breathing this air, drinking milk and eating a spinich salad they might hit that 0.05 mSv dose (or more) right?

Still having a hard time accepting the dose calculations of the impact on I-131 and (more importantly) Ce-137 on a developing (8-15 weeks) baby...especially since the 4 or 5 credible studies I've read indicate that effects of the low level exposure aren't actually known and are just extrapolated down from adults at higher exposure rates. Also if that Ce-137 is turning up in milk, spinich, etc then it's here to stay for quite some time given that 30 year half life correct?

Thanks for the time and continued work on this,
WH

Also...

Submitted by WH (not verified) on Wed, 2011-04-06 20:27.

It's a small point, but just wanted to confirm that all else being equal, you and other on the team can agree that you'd prefer not to eat/drink foods containing I-131, Ce-137 etc correct?

Thanks, this is a very

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-04-07 08:19.

Thanks, this is a very useful chart.

Fair point

Submitted by WH (not verified) on Wed, 2011-04-06 21:31.

I can't speak for others, but for me at least the Fukushima situation just highlights the increasingly polluted world that we live in, which is a fact of life but still disappointing and somewhat concerning. On the other hand I like to drink from time to time so I'm not going to complain about the marginal risk from any of this (although I'd also prefer not to uptake any of it for no reason).

My main concern here has been the lack of solid data on the really low doses for pregnant women (obviously a very small cohort of the general pop) since my first kid is on the way. Basically no one else I know is paying much attention to any of this, so you guys are having to deal with the most concerned parts of public (at least here on the forums). That's a tough job in any situation, and obviously it's particularly hard here where the only knowledge most people start out with is a general sense that radiation isn't good.

Thanks for sticking with it,
WH

I too keep hoping to hear

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-04-06 23:22.

I too keep hoping to hear something more in depth about the risk to our fifteen week old baby on the way. this means drastic life style changes for her and a greater strain on the budget and worries about what we can't avoid...