Would BRAWN team members and Berkeley students give tainted milk, spinach, veggies to their pregnant loved ones?
I posted a sort of analysis of my thinking on this in another topic here which lays out my reasoning and a little about my background working in the past with the Radiation and Public Health Project and their team ( see www.radiation.org )
I guess the prudent and most salient question I can ask is whether the BRAWN team would feel comfortable advising their wives or lovers or daughters and friends and loved ones who are pregnant (especially in their first trimester) that eating spinach, drinking milk, drinking tapwater, exposing themselves in any way internally to food shown to have detectable levels of radioiodine and radiocesium is safe and not to worry about it?
Healthy adults, especially many older folks, are at a very reduced risk of harm relative to fetuses. Birth defects, spontaneous abortions, stillborn births, infant mortality ALL are known possibilities from radiation exposure in utero. Even if the risks are small, aren't these risks simply too high to take the chance.
Would YOU feed this stuff to your pregnant daughter, wife, lover, friend or to anyone when there is CERTAINLY a risk of harm which may include death of the fetus in utero as well as serious abnormalities and mutations>
That is probably the clearest question i can ask the team and their students and others who are saying "don't worry" "the amounts are miniscule and the risks are tiny" . Fetuses are tiny too.
I go into a little more detail in my critique of the risk model used by BRAWN here and why I believe it is dangerously flawed (though I understand that it is the "prevailing" model despite much evidence that it is flawed raised by its critics)
This guy
Back in 86 wouldn't drink a quart of rainwater slightly higher in iodine 131 than ours. His comment is at bottom Of page
http://articles.latimes.com/1986-05-07/news/mn-3539_1_radiation-dose
Yes I would. I expect that
Yes I would.
I expect that the benefit of eating healthy organic produce outweighs the risk of any radiation effects.
Brian [BRAWM team member]
OK But if given the choice between tainted and untainted organic
produce:
What then?
Would you not prefer that which you knew was NOT tainted in the least for your loved pregnat one?
Any others from BRAWN care to weigh in?
In any case, Brian, I appreciate your candor.
and would love to have someone assess the ECRR risk issue too.
THAT is what I rely on and believe is more scientifically sound. They say the model you use may be off by a long shot. If it is your premise may be falty as well. Isn't that worth considering?
Cheers
and Thank all of you for your hard work and patience.
Bill
Any pregnant BRAWN team or staff or those of child-bearing age there?
Would you just stop with the
Would you just stop with the 'would you eat/drink this and that'?
It's getting old..
Thank you very much ...
For your tireless attempts at giving people what you really believe to be true. It actually helps many people who are reading the forums, even though some of them who post insist on not listening to you. Please keep up all the help you guys are giving and don't be discouraged by some of the posts form people who are asking you, but wanting you to give them a specific answer rather what your opinion really is.
earache my eye continued...
not to be unduly harsh or unsympathetic here, and i do appreciate the efforts the BRAWM team is putting into these measurements given the available data, and the data that they do happen to make available...but i seriously doubt that a chernobyl on steroids nuclear disaster, that is level 7 times 4, and the continuous radiation emissions from such an event, and these leaking reactors, warrant a low risk and/or no risk assessment.
The UCB folks have said
The UCB folks have said repeatedly that they put up the data for you to judge. They are giving you the standard risk analysis that is currently the agreed-upon standard. Should you choose to follow an alternative method that has not been validated, then you are free to do your own risk analysis under whatever model you choose.
Is it really that hard to understand?
instant karma...
depends on your point of view. but i agree in substance with what you have stated. yes we all have the duty to accept this data at face value and make our own conclusions, after all that is only commonsense. the us for the most part is not giving us any reliable data whatsoever.
Well, Mr. Miller, Do you speaking for everyone?
First, I want to underscore this conclusion of the ECRR (2003) summary:
"The committee draws particular attention to two recent sets of exposure studies which show unequivocal evidence of harm from internal irradiation at low dose. These are the studies of infant leukemia following Chernobyl, and the observation of increased minisatellite DNA mutations following Chernobyl. Both of these sets of studies falsify the ICRP risk models by factors of between 100 and 1000. The committee uses evidence of risk from exposures to internal and external radiation to set the weightings for the calculation of dose in a model which may be applied across all exposure types to estimate health outcomes. Unlike the ICRP the committee extends the analysis from fatal cancer to infant mortality and other causes of ill health..."
Second, I am NOT asking about all radiation. I am asking about the particularly dangerous radioiodine and radiocesium which is bioaccumulated INTERNALLY and which have different biological consequences than UV rays, the radiation in brazil nuts, cross country flights, xrays, bananas, etc.
The risk factor may be off by factors of 100 to 1000. So one estimate of potential new cancers (one in 200,000 which I saw here)may actually be as much as 1000 in 200,000 or .5%. THAT would make your estimates of risk "off by a long shot"
Agaian we have the distinction between apples and oranges that many critics have objected to as unscientific here on this forum (me among them) and which you correlate as roughly analogous in terms of exposure and risk.
I actually TRUST the ECRR study conclusions and do not trust the ICRP models you use.
Finally I am asking if folks on the BRAWN team would give their PREGNANT loved ones the milk which has .7 picocuries per liter of radioiodine if there was milk with NO radioiodine available. IF you speak for all of them then so be it. But I cannot help but wonder if others at BRAWN might feel any qualms at all about this position. Maybe you could take a vote.
ok - no more arguing
just trying to clarify.
As for the ECRR they ssay the same thing about the folks who created YOUR standards (and actually many of them served on that committee and then did the ECRR study to refute the other findings.
I guess I trust folks who are not beholden to the industry.
I DO appreciate that you feel there is such a small risk (if any) that you WOULD give this milk with the Fukushima radiation to your pregnant wife.
And I wonder if she would drink it.
But I totally appreciate the effort you are making to give us your honest opinions. I believe that you feel there is no risk worth considering.
My purpose in this intellectual exercise was to challenge you to consider possibilities outside your preconceived (prior to Fukushima) assumptions.
As an intellectual exercise, I am honiored that you took the time to dialogue, even though we disagree with each other. It is pretty clear that your department is committed to nuclear power and that is your focus. This commitment thus underscores your perspectives on matters of opinion.
But it does not affect your hard data.
With that data, I can ask experts their opinion.
Maybe if I get some answers I will pass them along.
Maybe you will reconsider your assumptions about the risk factors and maybe not. But at least you have reflected on them which is all I really was hoping for.'s important to many of us. Maybe the whole world.
Thanks
Cool. We're good.
From an epidemiological point of view, your data will be crucial - especially in the next year for assessing infant mortality, birth defect and miscarriage rates (if stats are kept on these).
If there is a spike up in these rates in your area beginning shortly after the radiation reached your lab and for the next 12 or so months after the last plume arrives and then if it goes back down afterwards, there will be at least evidence of my position. Obviously childhood leukemia rates etc in the next several years and on into the future will also need to be watched to determine if there are correlative spikes (not definive proof of causation, maybe to some, but evidence of causation which will need further analysis).
The radiation and publioc health project is utilizing batches of baby teeth and testing for strontium 90, a nuclear by-product whuch is routinely released into the air at operating commercial reactors and occasionally there are spikes of "unusual" amounts. The tests and analyses so far are pretty definitive and some have appeared in peer reviewed journals (again the website is www.radiation.org ).
The nuclear industry is a powerful lobby (I would argue the MOST powerful) and can manipulate lots of information both to cover up risks and promote its business and profits at the expense of humanity. In this way it can and does influence international bodies to downplay the risks (including the UN and the IAEA).
I might suggest reading the research and analyses by Pediatrician Helen Caldicott who worked at Harvard and has studied these issues extensively. Dr. Janette Sherman, who edited the NY Acadamy of Sciences study on Chenrobyl also is an MD with years of research in this field and who has written extensively on it.
I am glad you do not work for the power industry, Joseph. But I do think you need to look at some "outlier" perpsectives without such a jaundiced eye.
Anyway, I appreciate your responses. Challenging you all to think outside the box on the risk issue was my goal in what is for all of us a "teaching moment" as we learn and share all we can to get to the scientific truth about the Fukushima plumes and their deadly cargo.
eat a banana, go to jail continued...
thank you dr. miller for the sane and focused commentary. you have provided an invaluable service to this forum and those that are here for relevant information and realistic risk assessment.
Uh.. Your cliches are
Uh.. Your cliches are suffocating.
bad global warming bad or eat a banana and go to jail...
and arithmetic is more than simple single digit addition and subtraction. get to the point my friend. geeze.
High respect to Dr. Miller
For your patience, academic integrity and willingness to entertain all criticisms and be open to them, even when they are posited in less than civil ways. I wish there were more people like you in academia, or in general.
Great answer!
Great answer!
European Committee on Radiation Risk (2003) Summary
ECRR 2003 Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk The Health Effects of Ionising Radiation Exposure at Low Doses for Radiation Protection Purposes. Regulators' Edition.
Executive Summary
This report outlines the committee's findings regarding the effects on human health of exposure to ionising radiation and presents a new model for assessing these risks. It is intended for decision-makers and others who are interested in this area and aims to provide a concise description of the model developed by the committee and the evidence on which it depends. The development of the model begins with an analysis of the present risk model of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) which is the basis of and dominates all present radiation risk legislation. The committee regards this ICRP model as essentially flawed as regards its application to exposure to internal radioisotopes but for pragmatic reasons to do with the existence of historical exposure data has agreed to adjust for the errors in the ICRP model by defining isotope and exposure specific weighting factors for internal exposures so that the calculation of effective dose (in Sieverts) remains. Thus, with the new system, the overall risk factors for fatal cancer published by ICRP and other risk agencies may be used largely unchanged and legislation based upon these may also be used unchanged. It is the calculation of the dose which is altered by the committee's model.
1. The European Committee on Radiation Risk arose out of criticisms of the risk models of the ICRP which were explicitly identified at the European Parliament STOA workshop in February 1998; subsequently it was agreed that an alternative view should be sought regarding the health effects of low level radiation. The committee consists of scientists and risk specialists from within Europe but takes evidence and advice from scientists and experts based in other countries.
2. The report begins by identifying the existence of a dissonance between the risk models of the ICRP and epidemiological evidence of increased risk of illness, particularly cancer and leukaemia, in populations exposed to internal radioactive isotopes from anthropogenic sources. The committee addresses the basis in scientific philosophy of the ICRP risk model as applied to such risks and concludes that ICRP models have not arisen out of accepted scientific method. Specifically, ICRP has applied the results of external acute radiation exposure to internal chronic exposures from point sources and has relied mainly on physical models for radiation action to support this. However, these are averaging models and cannot apply to the probabilistic exposures which occur at the cell level. A cell is either hit or not hit; minimum impact is that of a hit and impact increases in multiples of this mimimum impact, spread over time. Thus the committee concludes that the epidemiological evidence of internal exposures must take precedence over mechanistic theory-based models in assessing radiation risk from internal sources.
3. The committee examines the ethical basis of principles implicit in the ICRP models and hence in legislation based on them. The committee concludes that the ICRP justifications are based on outmoded philosophical reasoning, specifically the averaging cost-benefit calculations of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism has long been discarded as a foundation for ethical justification of practice owing to its inability to distinguish between just and unjust societies and conditions. It may, for example, be used to underpin a slave society, since it is only the overall benefit which is calculated, and not individual benefit. The committee suggests that rights-based philosophies such as Rawls Theory of Justice or considerations based on the UN Declaration of Human Rights should be applied to the question of avoidable radiation exposures to members of the public resulting from practice. The committee concludes that releases of radioactivity without consent can not be justified ethically since the smallest dose has a finite, if small, probability of fatal harm. In the event that such exposures are permitted, the committee emphasises that the calculation of 'collective dose' should be employed for all practices and time scales of interest so that overall harm may be integrated over the populations.
4. The committee believes that it is not possible accurately to determine 'radiation dose to populations' owing to the problems of averaging over exposure types, cells and individuals and that each exposure should be addressed in terms of its effects at the cell or molecular level. However, in practice, this is not possible and so the committee has developed a model which extends that of the ICRP by the inclusion of two new weighting factors in the calculation of effective dose. These are biological and biophysical weighting factors and they address the problem of ionisation density or fractionation in time and space at the cell level arising from internal point sources. In effect, they are extensions of the ICRP's use of radiation weighting factors employed to adjust for differences in ionisation density resulting from different quality radiations (e.g. alpha-, beta and gamma).
5. The committee reviews sources of radiation exposure and recommends caution in attempting to gauge the effects of novel exposures by comparison with exposures to natural radiation. Novel exposures include internal exposures to artificial isotopes like Strontium-90 and Plutonium-239 but also include micrometer range aggregates of isotopes (hot particles) which may consist of entirely man-made isotopes (e.g. plutonium) or altered forms of natural isotopes (e.g. depleted uranium). Such comparisons are presently made on the basis of the ICRP concept of 'absorbed dose' which does not accurately assess the consequence for harm at the cell level. Comparisons between external and internal radiation exposures may also result in underestimates of risk since the effects at the cell level may be quantitatively very different.
6. The committee argues that recent discoveries in biology, genetics and cancer research suggest that the ICRP target model of cellular DNA is not a good basis for the analysis of risk and that such physical models of radiation action cannot take precedence over epidemiological studies of exposed populations. Recent results suggest that very little is known about the mechanisms leading from cell impact to clinical disease. The committee reviews the basis of epidemiological studies of exposure and points out that many examples of clear evidence of harm following exposure have been discounted by ICRP on the basis of invalid physical models of radiation action. The committee re-instates such studies as a basis for its estimates of radiation risk. Thus the 100-fold discrepancy between the ICRP model's predictions and the observed cases in the Sellafield childhood leukemia cluster becomes an estimator of risk for childhood leukemia following such exposure. The factor is thus incorporated by the committee into the calculation of harm from internal exposure of specific types through its inclusion in the weighting factors used to calculate the 'effective dose' to the children in Sieverts.
7. The committee reviews the models of radiation action at the cell level and concludes that the 'linear no threshold' model of the ICRP is unlikely to represent the response of the organism to increasing exposure except for external irradiation and for certain end points in the moderately high dose region. Extrapolations from the Hiroshima lifespan studies can only reflect risk for similar exposures i.e. high dose acute exposures. For low dose exposures the committee concludes, from a review of published work, that health effects relative to the radiation dose are proportionately higher at low doses and that there may be a biphasic dose response from many of these exposures owing to inducible cell repair and the existence of high-sensitivity phase (replicating) cells. Such dose-response relationships may confound the assessment of epidemiological data and the committee points out that the lack of a linear response in the results of epidemiological studies should not be used as an argument against causation.
8. In further considering mechanisms of harm, the committee concludes that the ICRP model of radiation risk and its averaging methods exclude effects which result from anisotropy of dose both in space and in time. Thus the ICRP model ignores both high doses to local tissue caused by internal hot particles, and sequential hits to cells causing replication induction and interception (second event), and merely averages all these high risk situations over large tissue mass. For these reasons, the committee concludes that the unadjusted 'absorbed dose' used by ICRP as a basis of risk calculations is flawed, and has replaced it with an adjusted 'absorbed dose' which used enhancement weightings based on the biophysical and biological aspects of the specific exposure. In addition, the committee draws attention to risks from transmutation from certain elements, notably Carbon-14 and Tritium, and have weighted such exposures accordingly. Weightings are also given to radioactive versions of elements which have a particular biochemical affinity for DNA e.g. Strontium and Barium and to certain Auger emitters.
9. The committee reviews the evidence which links radiation exposure to illness on the basis that similar exposures define the risks of such exposures. Thus the committee considers all the reports of associations between exposure and ill health, from the A-bomb studies to weapons fallout exposures, through nuclear site downwinders, nuclear workers, reprocessing plants, natural background studies and nuclear accidents. The committee draws particular attention to two recent sets of exposure studies which show unequivocal evidence of harm from internal irradiation at low dose. These are the studies of infant leukemia following Chernobyl, and the observation of increased minisatellite DNA mutations following Chernobyl. Both of these sets of studies falsify the ICRP risk models by factors of between 100 and 1000. The committee uses evidence of risk from exposures to internal and external radiation to set the weightings for the calculation of dose in a model which may be applied across all exposure types to estimate health outcomes. Unlike the ICRP the committee extends the analysis from fatal cancer to infant mortality and other causes of ill health including non-specific general health detriment.
10. The committee concludes that the present cancer epidemic is a consequence of exposures to global atmospheric weapons fallout in the period 1959-63 and that more recent releases of radioisotopes to the environment from the operation of the nuclear fuel cycle will result in significant increases in cancer and other types of ill health.
11. Using both the ECRR's new model and that of the ICRP the committee calculates the total number of deaths resulting from the nuclear project since 1945. The ICRP calculation, based on figures for doses to populations up to 1989 given by the United Nations, results in 1,173,600 deaths from cancer. The ECRR model predicts 61,600,000 deaths from cancer, 1,600,000 infant deaths and 1,900,000 foetal deaths. In addition, the ECRR predict a 10% loss of life quality integrated over all diseases and conditions in those who were exposed over the period of global weapons fallout.
12. The committee lists its recommendations. The total maximum permissible dose to members of the public arising from all human practices should not be more than 0.1mSv, with a value of 5mSv for nuclear workers. This would severely curtail the operation of nuclear power stations and reprocessing plants, and this reflects the committee's belief that nuclear power is a costly way of producing energy when human health deficits are included in the overall assessment. All new practices must be justified in such a way that the rights of all individuals are considered. Radiation exposures must be kept as low as reasonably achievable using best available technology. Finally, the environmental consequences of radioactive discharges must be assessed in relation to the total environment, including both direct and indirect effects on all living systems.
http://www.euradcom.org/2003/execsumm.htm
I am pregnant and also
I am pregnant and also really worried. However, the BRAWM team have answered this question a few times. It is in their FAQs (Q8,I think):
What steps would you recommend members of the public take to avoid the radiation?
In our laboratory we all learn the three basic rules of radiation protection: time, distance, and shielding. That is, minimize the amout of time during which you might contact a radioactive material, recognize that distance is very effective in reducing dose, and use shielding if the dose is high. As scientists but not health professionals, our expertise lies in detecting and quantifying trace radioisotopes in our samples. We try to put the dose from these radioisotopes in perspective by using comparisons to radiation doses that the public routinely accepts, such as the small dose one receives on an airplane flight, which is an element of background exposure. All we are showing is that we are observing extra radiation exposures to the public that are far, far smaller than the variations in background exposure that the public routinely accepts.
Therefore, we will not issue statements recommending that people take steps to receive a smaller dose of radiation, such as avoiding milk, drinking filtered water, or taking potassium iodide pills. Recommending such actions would be irresponsible, both because we are not health professionals and because such actions could have unintended health risks such as malnutrition or sickness. These decisions are left for you to make in consultation with your doctor.
Some have asked what the members of the team are doing in response to Fukushima. The answer is that none of us are changing our lifestyles in any way due to the fallout from Fukushima.
three basic: time, distance, and shielding
three basic rules of radiation protection: time, distance, and shielding
It is impossible to apply these rules to something you have ingested.
If you were to follow these rules you would have to wait
for say Iodine 131 half life to take effect before drinking milk let's say.
But how can you apply distance and shielding to something taken
internally?
You cant put distance between molecules in your body to an radioactive
atom . THe distance is very close. SO that distance rule is out the
door.
THe shielding is impossible. you can out a lead shield around an
individual radioactive ion in your body so that goes out the door as well.
The only thing is to buy products that were packaged before the japan nuke incident and eat healthy that way. Try finding bottled water that was packaged before and other food stuffs (even pasta that has been packaged) to give Time for the radioactive atoms to decay.
You can't avoid it eventually because it is on plants and drinking water even though in low amounts you still can buy time by searching for pre disaster packaged goods and avoid drinking milk. Pre-packaged baby formula or dried milk made before the disaster is good at reducing exposure. Washing vegetables thoroughly.
Eventually the Cesium 134 and 137 will work it's way up the food chain and appear in meat, nuts..etc.. It's already in milk.
eat a banana, go to jail continued...
good point. that apples and oranges comparison thingie again. like you say those science lab procedures are of little use to the average person living in the 'give and take' of the realworld.
but still joseph thank you for poordiving relevant information here. i can't speak for the others, but it is greatly appreciated. peace.
Well they haven't answered this specific question
about whether they would feed food, milk, spinach, mushrooms, etc tainted with radioiodine and radiocesium or strontium 90 (which they are not testing for but which they plan to, I believe) to their loved ones who are pregnant, especially in their first trimester.
Maybe they will not answer this question.
But hopefully they will read the ECRR 2003 summary and will think about it before telling us it THEY aren't doing anything different and implying that pregnant women are not placing their child at risk even in the first trimester.
OF course, a doctor should be consulted. But I have worked with pediatricians and MDs in this field and they say NOT to expose your baby in utero to such radionuclides if you can possibly avoid it. The risk is too high even if very small. EACH child may have different vulnerability and ONE little piece of damage to dna can be deadly or permanently disabling.
I will add that I am a "downwinder" who had good friends who lived right next to a leaky commercial nuclear power plant and BOTH of their children had life threatening mutations when born. One was severely permanently disabled but is a paraplegic; the other was saved by multiple surgeries to correct the defects.
So this is a matter close to my experience (low dose exposure claimed to be "safe" and "permissible" doses.
eat a banana, go to jail continued...
Maybe they will not answer this question.
i'm sorry.. i just see this happening either. strontium-90 is everywhere as you have pointed out and from repeated nuclear device tests.
this do nothing different is really of great concern, there is no way to nullify the risks for various toxic substances, radioiodine and radiocesium being among the worst.
That's a good question! I
That's a good question! I just passed my 1st trimester and I am very worried about the continous exposure to low levels of radiation in the air and food. Is my fetus 100% safe?
I posted this OP and here is link to previous discussion
I meant to post iot in the OP:
My critique (with all due respect and gratitude for all BRAWN is doing) may be found here:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2585#comment-2034
Why all the pussyfooting
Why all the pussyfooting around asking the UCB folks what they would do or would not do? Read the data, inform yourself. They say they're OK with it for themselves and family, i.e., eating the tested foods and drink milk. If the reader doesn't agree, fine, then DON'T do it for yourself and your family. I've got mine on some iodine supplementation and we're off milk and milk products until further notice. Soy milk products give similar nutrients, we'll use those until/unless I see those might be contaminated. Use your brains, I see no point in endless cross examination of UCB people about what they are doing personally, as if they're secretly abstaining from all the foods they're testing while saying the opposite. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. I don't know, but I have no evidence to disbelieve them. What they have said is already in the FAQs and in multiple responses...
Totally
I agree, you all are asking physicists about health issues, go figure it out for yourselves or better yet ask someone with the appropriate background. There is ample information out there and the above post has very sensible ideas considering the information at hand.
eat a banana, go to jail continued...
aha!
wrong. joseph has plainly stated just the opposite several times. he is not a nuclear physicist, he is involved on the health care side of this. we should all be glad he's here and as is the other team members.